Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service
Washington State
Department of Ecology
F'C'O'L b'cV
JANUARY 1997
300R05900E
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Okanogan County, Washington
SUMMARY
Assembled By:
Terra Matrix
Engineering &. Environmental Services
-------
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Department of Ecology
Tonasket Ranger District Washington State
1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
January 1997
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed for your review is the summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) for the Crown Jewel Mine
Project (Crown Jewel Project) proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation (jointly
referred to as the "Proponent") This document describes the environmental effects of the Proponent's plan to construct
and operate a gold and silver mine and mill project near Chesaw, in Okanogan County, Washington and alternatives to
that plan
The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Washington Department of
Ecology (WADOE) appreciate all the comments, suggestions, and ideas received throughout the E1S development
process To aid in the preparation of the E1S, we held a series of public meetings in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 We
want to thank you for your participation in this Project and hope that you find the analysis responsive to your concerns
Besides the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proponent's Plan (Alternative B), we examined five other
alternatives (Alternatives C through G) in the completion of the final E1S In these other alternatives, we analyzed
underground mining, a combination of underground and surface mining, partial and complete backfilling of the mine pit,
differing locations for waste rock and tailings, a decreased production and operating schedule, and a non-cyanide milling
process known as flotation. This wide array of alternatives was designed to respond to comments received during the
scoping process.
As a result of the discussion in the draft E1S and the comments received on the draft EIS, the Proponent revised their
Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan. These revisions are reflected in the Alternative B presented in this final EIS.
Some of the Proponent's modifications include the plans for a double synthetic liner system with a leak detection system
for the tailings facility, downstream construction of the tailings embankment in Marias Creek, shifting the placement of
the north and south waste rock disposal areas (as well as reducing post-mining reclaimed slopes), augmentation of
natural pit filling with water from Myers Creek, and revisions to their reclamation plan that includes increased tree
plantings and additional re-vegetation activities in the mine pit area
Some of the key issues for this proposal include: The potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals to enter the
environment; the potential effects on water availability and quality, changes in land use which effect wildlife, timber
production, grazing and recreation, changes to the local social and economic structure, and assessing the short-term
losses of existing uses of the land and the ability to reclaim the land in the long-term to approximate pre-Project uses.
If you would like to review the entire final EIS, you may pick up or review a copy at either the Forest Service offices in
Tonasket or Okanogan, Washington or the WADOE offices in Olympia or Yakima, Washington
If you cannot pick up a copy, you may leave a message at (509) 486-5137 (Forest Service) or (360) 407-6925
(WADOE) and a copy would be mailed to you. Copies of the final EIS are available for review in local libraries in
Omak, Tonasket, Oroville, Brewster, Seattle (main branch), Chelan, Colville, Grand Coulee, Wenatchee, Republic,
Twisp, Spokane and Winthrop, Washington Further locations where copies of the final EIS would also be available for
review include BLM offices in Spokane and Wenatchee, Washington, the British Columbia Ministry of Environmental,
-------
Lands and Parks office in Victoria, British Columbia; Environment Canada in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and
the Village Office in Midway, British Columbia.
Also enclosed is the Record of Decision which documents the decision by the Responsible Officials for the Okanogan
National Forest and Spokane District for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to select Alternative B as presented in
the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine including the reclamation, mitigation,
monitoring and performance guarantee measures described in the FEIS, Section 2.11 through 2.14. Alternative B,
modified by the Record of Decision, would allow the Proponent to develop, construct, operate, close and reclaim a
surface mining and milling operation for gold and silver recovery and production on Buckhorn Mountain. Because
authority for approval of this project lies not only with the Forest Service and BLM, but also with other Federal, State
and Local agencies, other decision documents and permits would be issued by the appropriate agency to cover that
agency's decisions. The Record of Decision only covers decisions under the authority of the Okanogan National Forest
Supervisor for the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the Spokane District Manager for the
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management
The decision to allow the development of the mine is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service 36 CFR 215
Regulations for those actions on lands administered by the Forest Service. Appeal of this decision must be fully
consistent with 36 CFR 215.14 (Content of an appeal), and must provide sufficient evidence and rationale to show why
the Responsible Official's decision should be remanded or reversed Appeals must be in writing and must be
postmarked and sent to the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the date of publication of the notice of decision
for this project in the Wenatchee World The Appeals Deciding Officer for this project is.
Regional Forester
ATTN: 1570 APPEALS
Pacific Northwest Region
P.O. Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208-3623
Only those actions pertaining to the public lands administered by the BLM and subject to BLM jurisdiction may be
appealed under BLM administrative appeal rights. Parties, other than Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown
Resources Corporation, may appeal this decision directly to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary,
in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4, and Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, the notice of
appeal must be filed within 30 days of publication of this decision in the Federal Register with the BLM officer listed
below, with the IBLA at the address below, and with the office of the Regional Solicitor at the address below.
District Manager
Spokane District Office
Bureau of Land Management
1103N. Fancher
Spokane, WA 99212
Interior Board of Land Appeals
Office of Hearings and Appeals
4015 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22203
Office of the Regional Solicitor
Department of Interior
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 607
Portland, OR 97232
The Forest Service 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations require that the implementation of this project be automatically
stayed until 5 days after the close of the appeal period if no appeal is filed Also based on those regulations, if an appeal
is filed, the decision would not be implemented until 15 days following the date of appeal disposition. The Forest
Service Plan of Operations, Special Use Authorizations and Road Use Permits would not be approved until the Forest
Service's internal administrative review process has been completed. The Forest Service considers approval of the Plan
of Operations, Special Use Authorizations and Road Use Permits for the project to be implementation of the project,
and these approvals are not subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215.8(b).
The decision affecting BLM administered lands would be in full force and effect as of the date of signing of
the Record of Decision and would remain in effect during any appeal unless a written request for a stay is granted
pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21. The full force and eifect provisions only apply to the approval of the Selected Alternative,
as modified by the Record of Decision, and do not pertain to initiating actions under a Plan of Operations.
The Proponent is required to prepare a revised Plan of Operations and financial guarantee estimate, that
-------
fully incorporates all of the requirements of the Record of Decision, obtain BLM approval of those documents, and post
acceptable financial guarantees prior to commencing operations. BLM approval of the Plan of Operations and financial
guarantees would be addressed in a separate appealable decision.
WADOE has not chosen a Preferred Alternative in the final E1S. In accordance with WAC 197-11 -655, WADOE
would consider the alternatives in relevant environmental documents as part of WADOE permit decisions.
There is no administrative appeal process under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act available with issuance
of the final E1S by WADOE. Permit decisions by WADOE may be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board
(PCHB). Part of this appeal can include appeal of the final EIS.
Further information on the Crown Jewel Project can be obtained by contacting the agency Project leaders: Phil Christy,
at the Forest Service Tonasket Ranger District Office, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855, phone (509) 486-
5137; Patricia Belts, at the Olympia office of WADOE, P.O. Box 47703, Olympia, Washington, 98504, phone (360)
407-6925, or Brent Cunderla at the Wenatchee Resource Area office of the BLM, 915 N. Walla Walla Street,
Wenatchee, Washington, 98801, phone (509) 665-2100. Please leave a message if these individuals are not available.
Respectfully submitted,
SAMGEHR
Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
U.S.D A. Forest Service
Re^ibnal Director
Cental Region
Washington Department of I
-------
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Department of Ecology
Washington State
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, Washington 98504
CROWN JEWEL MINE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
January 1997
Assembled by:
TerraMatrix Inc.
343 West Drake Road, Suite 108
Fort Collins, CO 80526
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION S-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED S-1
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION S-1
1.3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE S-4
1.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS S-4
1.4.1 Air Quality S-6
1.4.2 Heritage Resources and Native American Issues S-6
1.4.3 Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue) S-6
1.4.4 Geochemistry (Key Issue) S-7
1.4.5 Energy S-7
1.4.6 Noise S-7
1.4.7 Soils (Key Issue) S-8
1.4.8 Surface Water and Ground Water (Key Issue) S-8
1.4.9 Wetlands (Key Issue) S-8
1.4.10 Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key Issue) S-9
1.4.11 Vegetation (Key Issue) S-9
1.4.12 Reclamation (Key Issue) S-9
1.4.13 Wildlife (Key Issue) S-10
1.4.14 Fish Habitat and Populations S-10
1.4.15 Recreation S-11
1.4.16 Land Use S-11
1.4.17 Socioeconomics (Key Issue) S-11
1.4.18 Scenic Resources S-12
1.4.19 Health/Safety S-12
1.4.20 Transportation S-12
1.5 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS/NO VARIATION BETWEEN
ALTERNATIVES S-13
1.5.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers S-13
1.5.2 Trails S-13
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION S-14
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS S-14
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES S-14
2.2.1 Alternative A - No Action S-17
2.2.2 Alternative B - Proposed Action S-17
2.2.3 Alternative C S-17
2.2.4 Alternative D S-22
2.2.5 Alternative E S-22
2.2.6 Alternative F S-27
2.2.7 Alternative G S-27
2.2.8 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study S-32
2.3 RECLAMATION S-32
2.4 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION S-33
2.4.1 Air Quality S-34
2.4.2 Heritage Resources S-34
2.4.3 Cyanide and Other Chemicals S-34
2.4.4 Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid S-35
2.4.5 Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic Forming Capability S-36
2.4.6 Geology and Geotechnical S-37
2.4.7 Land Use S-37
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-ii
2.4.8 Noise S-38
2.4.9 Permitting and Financial Assurances (Performance Securities) S-38
2.4.10 Recreation S-39
2.4.11 Socioeconomics S-39
2.4.12 Soils S-39
2.4.13 Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality and Quantity S-40
2.4.14 Transportation S-42
2.4.15 Vegetation S-43
2.4.16 Wetlands S-44
2.4.17 Scenic Resources S-44
2.4.18 Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement S-44
2.4.20 Employee Training S-48
2.4.21 Solid Waste (Garbage) Management S-49
2.5 MONITORING MEASURES S-49
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT S-53
3.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE S-53
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY S-54
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY S-54
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS S-56
3.5 SOILS S-56
3.6 SURFACE WATER S-56
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS S-57
3.8 GROUND WATER S-58
3.8.1 Project Site Hydrogeology S-58
3.8.2 Ground Water Quality S-59
3.8.3 Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water S-60
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES S-61
3.9.1 Ground Water S-61
3.9.2 Surface Water S-62
3.10 VEGETATION S-62
3.11 WETLANDS S-63
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES S-63
3.12.1 Habitat Conditions S-64
3.12.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species S-66
3.12.3 Benthic Macro-Invertebrates S-66
3.13 WILDLIFE S-67
3.14 NOISE S-67
3.1 5 RECREATION S-67
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES S-69
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES S-70
3.18 TRANSPORTATION S-70
3.19 LAND USE S-70
3.20 SOCIOECONOMICS S-71
3.20.1 Population S-71
3.20.2 Housing S-71
3.20.3 Employment S-72
3.20.4 Income S-72
3.20.5 Community and Public Services S-73
3.20.6 Fiscal Conditions S-75
3.20.7 Social Values S-77
3.20.8 Land Ownership and Values S-78
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-iii
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES S-80
4.1 AIR QUALITY S-80
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY S-90
4.3 GEOLOGY S-90
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS S-91
4.5 SOILS S-91
4.6 GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND SEEPS S-92
4.7 SURFACE WATER S-94
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS S-98
4.9 VEGETATION S-100
4.10 WETLANDS S-102
4.11 AQUATIC HABITATS AND POPULATIONS S-112
4.12 WILDLIFE S-113
4.13 NOISE S-113
4.14 RECREATION S-115
4.15 SCENIC RESOURCES S-116
4.16 HERITAGE RESOURCES S-116
4.17 TRANSPORTATION S-117
4.18 LAND USE/RECLAMATION S-119
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT S-120
4.20 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CONSERVATION S-124
4.21 MINING ECONOMICS S-124
4.22 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS S-125
4.22.1 Water Reservoir Rupture S-125
4.22.2 Tailings Dam Failure S-126
4.22.3 Transportation Spill S-127
4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES S-128
4.23.1 Irreversible Resource Commitment S-128
4.23.2 Irretrievable Resource Commitments S-129
4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS S-129
4.25 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY S-130
4.26 RESERVATION OF PROJECT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT S-131
4.27 SPECIALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES S-132
4.27.1 Floodplains and Wetlands S-132
4.27.2 Social Groups S-132
4.27.3 Threatened and Endangered Species S-132
4.27.4 Prime Range Land, Farm Land, and Forest Land S-132
4.27.5 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives S-132
4.27.6 Heritage Resources S-133
4.27.7 Conflicts Between Proposed Action and Other Federal, State and Local
Plans, Policies and Controls S-133
4.27.8 Compliance With Applicable Laws S-133
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-/V
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title
Page No.
S-1 List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals S-5
S-2 Alternative Comparison Summary S-15
S-3 Acreage Summary S-16
S-4 Summary of Alternative B S-19
S-5 Summary of Alternative C S-21
S-6 Summary of Alternative D S-24
S-7 Summary of Alternative E S-26
S-8 Summary of Alternative F S-29
S-9 Summary of Alternative G S-31
S-10 Potential Environmental Protection and Reclamation Activity and Calculation
Method S-51
S-11 Measured Background Noise Levels S-68
S-12 Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue S-81
S-13 Summary of Average Precipitation Year (20.0 Inches) Impacts of Buckhorn
Mountain Drainages S-96
S-14 Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages S-97
S-15 Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
Washington Aquatic Life Quality Criteria S-99
S-16 Estimated Water Usage Requirements S-101
S-17 Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification . S-103
S-18 Wetland and Stream Direct Impacts S-110
S-19 Comparison of Noise Impacts for all Alternatives S-114
S-20 Traffic Summary by Road S-118
S-21 Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action Alternatives S-121
S-22 Anticipated Population Increase S-122
S-23 Anticipated School Enrollment Effects S-122
S-24 Anticipated Permanent Housing Demand S-123
S-25 Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal Effects S-123
S-26 Energy Consumption S-124
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
Page No.
S-1 General Location Map S-2
S-2 Land Status Map S-3
S-3 Alternative B - Operational Site Plan S-18
S-4 Alternative C - Operational Site Plan S-20
S-5 Alternative D - Operational Site Plan S-23
S-6 Alternative E - Operational Site Plan S-25
S-7 Alternative F - Operational Site Plan S-28
S-8 Alternative G - Operational Site Plan S-30
S-9 Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment Area . S-93
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-1
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
In January 1992, Battle Mountain Gold Company submitted a plan of operations outlining a
proposal to develop, construct, operate, close, and reclaim a surface mining and milling operation
to recover gold values from mining claims on and around Buckhorn Mountain, which is located
approximately 3.5 miles east of Chesaw, Washington as shown on Figure S-1, General Location
Map. The project known as the Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown Jewel Project) is being
developed jointly by Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation. These
firms will be identified throughout this final environmental impact statement (final EIS) summary
document as the "Proponent."
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service), the U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE), and Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) have determined that a decision on the Proponent's
proposal would constitute a major federal and state action requiring the preparation of an EIS under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose and need for the EIS is to respond to the Proponent's Plan of Operations and other
permit applications to develop and operate a mine on Buckhorn Mountain, for a specific ore body,
while protecting surface resources. This EIS has been prepared to inform the federal, state, and
local agency decision makers of the probable environmental impacts of the proposal, present a
range of reasonable alternatives, and suggest reasonable mitigation measures.
1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is to develop, construct, operate, close, and reclaim a surface mining and
milling operation with associated facilities known as the Crown Jewel Project.
As proposed by the Proponent, the mine would process about 3,000 tons of ore and handle an
average of 34,000 tons of waste rock per day for approximately eight years. Expected gold
production is estimated at about 180,000 ounces per year with the use of tank cyanidation for
gold recovery. The work force would consist of about 144 people during full production.
The Crown Jewel Project would directly disturb an estimated 787 acres during the life of the
Project. This acreage disturbance would be categorized as follows:
• 469 acres (59%) - lands administered by the Forest Service;
• 189 acres (24%) - lands administered by the BLM;
• 13 acres (2%)- lands administered by WADNR; and,
• 116 acres (15%) - private lands controlled by the Proponent.
Property ownership in the general vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project is shown on Figure S-2, Land
Status Map.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
1
I
3.
i
o
i
BRITISH COLUMBIA
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
BRITISH COLUMBIA
FERRY
COUNTY
FERRY
COUNTY
OKANOGAN
COUNTY
I
JO
<0
SJ
CO
i
=0
OREGON
FIGURE S-1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP
3F-1.DWC
Co
N)
-------
i
I
I
<6
sr
I
o
"t
CO
sr
LEGEND
USFS. LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
MINE PIT AREA
25-18USFS MANAGEMENT AREA
FIGURE S-2, LAND STATUS MAP
FILE NAME CJSF-2 DWG
i
Co
Co
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-4
1.3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
The Forest Service and WADOE (co-lead agencies), with the assistance of the BLM, Army Corps of
Engineers, and WADNR (cooperating agencies), are the agencies responsible for the completion of
the Crown Jewel Project EIS. These agencies are following specific procedures that began with
scoping and data collection and continued with analysis of data and evaluation of alternatives. In
accordance with regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500) and SEPA (Chapter 197-11 WAC),
the results of this analysis are documented in the EIS and will form the basis for decisions on the
various permits and approvals for the Crown Jewel Project.
Upon issuance of the final EIS by the lead and cooperating agencies, the Forest Service and BLM
will jointly select an alternative and issue a Record of Decision. The Army Corps of Engineers will
also issue a Record of Decision based on the final EIS. The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan
National Forest is the NEPA responsible official for the Forest Service. The District Manager for the
Spokane District of the BLM is the NEPA responsible official for the BLM. The District Engineer for
the Seattle District is the NEPA responsible official for the Army Corps of Engineers.
In the Record of Decision, the responsible officials may decide to:
• Adopt the no action alternative;
• Adopt one of the action alternatives;
• Adopt an alternative that combines features of more than one alternative; or,
• Adopt one of the action alternatives with additional mitigation measures.
If the proposal changes such that effects are beyond those analyzed in this EIS, additional
environmental analysis may be required.
If the Crown Jewel Project is approved, the Proponent would be required to develop and submit a
revised Plan of Operations that conforms to the Record of Decision. A separate approval on this
Plan of Operations would be made by the Forest Service and BLM.
SEPA does not require that the WADOE or WADNR issue a Record of Decision. Washington State
regulatory agencies will issue (or deny) permits for the Crown Jewel Project following issuance of
the final EIS.
A listing of potential federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the Crown Jewel
Project is presented on Table S-1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals.
On National Forest Land, a new temporary management prescription, designated as MA 27, and
associated standards and guidelines would be an integral part of each of the action alternatives.
1.4 ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Scoping for the Crown Jewel Project was conducted to focus the EIS on those issues and concerns
considered important to the public and various government agencies. A Scoping Summary was
prepared and released to the public in July of 1993.
Issues and concerns are the areas of discussion, debate, or dispute about effects of proposed
activities on specific resources. The alternatives of the Crown Jewel Project EIS were designed to
respond to the issues brought forth in the scoping process. Key issues are those that surfaced
most frequently in public and agency comments and over which there were widely differing
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-5
TABLE S-1, LIST OF TENTATIVE AND POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
RED6RAI SOW0WW6NT ' ' ::, . •••,-•
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Communications Commission
Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
ST^E6PWA$H«*<3TON
Washington Department of Energy
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Community Development,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Labor and Industries
Ua^;:^(gpW«BW
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge
and Fill)
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
• Review of Section 404 Permit
• Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity1
• Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation
(Section 7 Consultation)
• Radio Authorizations
• Explosives User Permit
• Mine Identification Number1
• Legal Identity Report'
• Miner Training Plan Approval
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit
• State Waste Discharge Permit
• Water Quality Standards Modification
• Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean
Water Act)
• Dam Safety Permits
• Reservoir Permit
• Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
• Changes to Existing Water Rights
• Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
• Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air
Quality)2
• Dangerous Waste Permit2
• Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
• Forest Practice Application
• Burning Permit (Fire Protection)
• Hydraulic Project Approval
• Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966)
• Sewage Disposal Permit
• Public Water Supply Approval
• Explosive License
• Safety Regulation Compliance'
y:.::;.;:,:;.;:.-::-.. ••••,, ,, ... \'.l .1 " .:..•'. ['
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Requirements
• Building Permits
• Maximum Environmental Noise Levels1
• Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Approval (County
Commissioners)
• Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
• Solid Waste Handling
• Septic Tanks and Drain Field Approval
• Road Construction and/or Realignment
• Power Service Contract
Note*: 1 . Performance standard/requirement - No formal permit necessary.
2. Potential permit - At this time, these permits are not anticipated for the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page 5-6
opinions. While other "non-key" issues were also considered, they did not drive alternative
development. Associated with all identified issues are "Primary Comparison Criteria." These are
quantitative and qualitative measures that indicate how the individual alternatives respond to a
particular issue and can be used as a basis of comparison amongst the alternatives.
The following sections address the issues identified during the environmental analysis of the Crown
Jewel Project.
1.4.1 Air Quality
Identify and minimize the air quality impacts caused by the Crown Jewel Project. Areas of concern
include: the effects on air quality from fugitive dust and gaseous emissions; air quality impacts
(visibility, depositional) on the Pasayten Wilderness; and, cumulative air quality effects.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Tons per year/cumulative total suspended particulates (TSP) created;
• Tons per year/cumulative particles less than PM-10 created;
• Tons per year/cumulative cyanide gas released to the atmosphere;
• Tons per year/cumulative nitrogen oxide emissions released to the atmosphere; and,
• Changes in visibility model screening parameters and plume contrast from the Pasayten
Wilderness.
1.4.2 Heritage Resources and Native American Issues
Identify cultural resources and minimize disturbance impacts. Areas of concern include: effects to
historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the
potential to affect cultural resources, reserved rights, trust issues, and responsibilities of the
Colville Confederated Tribes.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Number of known historic sites physically disturbed or destroyed by the Crown Jewel Project;
and,
• Number of acres not available to Colville Confederated Tribe members.
1.4.3 Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue)
Identify geologic hazards on the site and minimize the potential for failure of any Crown Jewel
Project facility. Areas of concern include: the potential influence of geologic hazards; potential for
and consequences of failures within waste rock disposal areas, tailings impoundments, pit walls, or
pond liners; and, the effects of blasting on area geology.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Safety factors of waste rock slopes and tailings embankment;
• Acres of potential ground subsidence through underground mining;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page 5-7
• Potential for rock slides (loose rock areas) or exposure of unstable rock sections in the pit wall;
and,
• Proximity of ground water to the bottom of the tailings liner.
1.4.4 Geochemistry (Key Issue)
Identify the potential for acid-rock drainage and metals transport from the mine pit and the waste
rock disposal areas. Identify and minimize the potential impacts from the tailings material. Areas
of concern include: the down gradient water uses; potential short-term and long-term impacts to
humans, wildlife, and fish; the potential for acid rock drainage; the ability to mitigate acid rock
drainage if it occurs; possible releases of radioactive materials resulting from moving large
quantities of earth; and, the ability to isolate potential pollutants in both the short-term and
long-term.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock disposal areas;
• Potential for release of radioactive materials (alpha and beta emissions);
• Potential for metals transport; and,
• Potential for release of tailings materials or interstitial liquids into ground and surface waters.
1.4.5 Energy
Identify the potential impacts to energy supplies (i.e. electricity, diesel, and other petroleum based
products) and minimize the use of nonrenewable energy resources. Areas of concern include: the
quantity of electricity needed and how it may impact the county; the quantity of diesel; and other
petroleum based products to be used during operations.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Gallons of petroleum products used per year/life of the Crown Jewel Project; and,
• Kwh of electricity used per year/life of the Crown Jewel Project.
1.4.6 Noise
Identify and minimize noise impacts. Areas of concern include: worker health and safety; and,
disruptions to the normal activities of adjacent residents/communities and wildlife populations.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Daytime decibel (dBA) increase at property boundary, communities of Chesaw and Bolster;
• Nighttime dBA increase at property boundary, communities of Chesaw and Bolster;
• Level of blasting noise able to be heard by the general public;
• Noise effects on wildlife; and,
• Effects of on-site noise level on worker health and safety.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-8
1.4.7 Soils (Key Issue)
Identify Crown Jewel Project site soil resources and the adequacy of soil for reclamation. The
expressed concerns regarding soil include: the identification of soil resources in terms of quantity
and quality; soil use and adequacy for final reclamation; and, the potential for any soil erosion and
loss of soil productivity.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Percent of soil available for reclamation at 12-inch and 18-inch depths;
• Changes in soil productivity; and,
• Acres of topsoil removal.
1.4.8 Surface Water and Ground Water (Key Issue)
Identify and minimize impacts to water quality and hydrology to maintain the integrity of affected
watersheds. Maintain adequate flows to protect the dependent resources. Areas of concern
include: the potential to alter existing hydrologic systems by direct disturbances of stream courses;
increased sediment loads; alteration of downstream flow rates; alteration of existing springs and
seeps; and, changes in water chemistry as a result of mining and milling operations. The impact to
water rights on Toroda Creek and Myers Creek, including Canadian water rights, is another
concern.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Changes in stream flow rates within the Crown Jewel Project area;
• Changes in numbers of springs and seeps in the Crown Jewel Project area;
• Lineal feet of existing stream channels impacted (Gold Bowl drainage, Marias Creek, and
Nicholson Creek);
• Predicted changes to ground water and surface water chemistry from pit water, waste rock,
and tailings;
• Changes in ground water and surface water chemistry;
• Predicted increases in stream sediment loads;
• Estimated annual water use (acre feet); and,
• Estimated life-of-mine water use (acre feet).
1.4.9 Wetlands (Key Issue)
Identify and minimize impacts to wetlands in the Crown Jewel Project area. Areas of concern
include: the acres of wetlands lost; the changes in functions and values of wetlands on- and off-
site (as a result of the Crown Jewel Project); and, the potential effects from the creation and
dewatering of the pit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-9
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres of wetlands with changed functions (i.e. stormwater retention, filtering capability) and
values (i.e. potential habitat diversity, potential wildlife corridors) due to the Crown Jewel
Project;
• Acres and types of wetlands lost; and,
• Acres and types of new wetlands created.
1.4.10 Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key Issue)
Address impacts of chemicals, cyanide in particular, used in mining and milling. A number of
chemicals would be used that can have toxic effects on humans, wildlife, fisheries, and the general
environment. Areas of concern include: the form these chemicals would be in if released to the
environment; the potential of these chemicals to affect humans, domestic stock, plants and
wildlife; the long-term health effects of the use of these chemicals; the effectiveness and reliability
of the detoxification process in removing hazardous chemicals or depositing these chemicals in a
stable form in the tailings pond; and, the prevention of contamination at the site.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Estimated annual/total tons used of sodium cyanide, cement/lime, lead nitrate, sodium nitrate,
ammonium nitrate, hydrochloric acid, caustic, copper sulfate, and diesel fuel; and,
• Transport of key toxic substances.
1.4.11 Vegetation (Key Issue)
Address the impacts to vegetation in the Crown Jewel Project area. Areas of concern include: the
potential effects on threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants; and, the control of noxious weeds.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Number of threatened and endangered plants lost;
• Number of sensitive plants lost;
• Timber removed (board feet); and,
• Annual/total AUMs (animal unit months) of grazing lost.
1.4.12 Reclamation (Key Issue)
Minimize the size of the disturbed area and provide for reclamation of all disturbed areas. Areas of
concern include: the successful short-term soil stability and long-term revegetation to a primarily
forested environment; and, the ability to prevent or control damage to the environment.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres/percentage of waste rock slopes steeper than 2H:1 V; between 2H:1 V to 3H:1 V; and
3H: 1V or flatter;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-10
• Acres/percentage of south-facing waste rock slopes needing reclamation;
• Acres of disturbance needing reclamation;
• Acres/percentages of slopes which can be successfully reclaimed with timber (greater than
100, well scattered, live and healthy trees per acre);
• Percentages of slopes which can be successfully reclaimed with grasses and shrubs; and,
• Acres to be blasted, filled, or flooded in pit.
1.4.13 Wildlife (Key Issue)
Minimize the disruption to wildlife and habitats. Areas of concern include: the impacts to
threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; impacts to deer habitat; impacts associated with
increased human activity; loss of habitat and habitat effectiveness; wildlife exposure to toxic
substances; effects on migratory birds and raptors; effects on "Management Indicator Species"
identified in the Forest Plan; and, reduction of habitat diversity.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres/percent of deer winter range (snow intercept thermal cover and thermal cover) lost;
• Acres/percent of existing old growth harvested;
• Comparison of the balance of forage, hiding cover, thermal cover, and snow intercept thermal
cover;
• Comparison of the balance of grasslands, shrub, early successions!, mixed conifer pole, mixed
conifer young and mature, old growth, deciduous, riparian/wetland, agriculture, lake/pond, and
disturbed;
• Comparison of total and open road densities;
• Acres/percentage of habitat lost in the Crown Jewel Project analysis area for key species;
• Acres/percent of cover types lost; and,
• Loss of other habitat structures such as snags, down logs, cliffs, caves, and talus slopes.
1.4.14 Fish Habitat and Populations
Minimize disruption to fish habitat and fish populations. Areas of concern include: decreased
flows in Nicholson, Marias, and Myers Creeks; stream sedimentation; the impacts of changes in
stream chemistry and temperature on fish; and, the potential for a toxic chemical release entering
Nicholson Creek and/or Marias Creek, or other streams.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Predicted changes in stream temperature; and,
• Predicted changes in spawning habitat.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-11
1.4.15 Recreation
Minimize disturbance to recreational opportunities. Areas of concern include: disruption to
recreational opportunities in the area, including Jackson Creek and Graphite Mountain undeveloped
areas, caused by changes in scenery, background sounds, adjacent traffic, and accessibility.
Another concern is the effect to the recreational experience of fisher people and campers at Beth
and Beaver Lakes due to changes in traffic caused by transportation of Crown Jewel Project
supplies and materials.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Changes in recreational access;
• Increases in vehicles, and changes in kinds of vehicles, past Beth and Beaver Lakes;
• dBA increase in noise to Graphite Mountain; and,
• Facilities visible from Graphite Mountain.
1.4.16 Land Use
Minimize disturbance by maintaining a compact operation. Areas of concern are: the acreage of
total disturbance; the amount of disturbance on Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and private lands;
any changes in land use; and, the acreage of public lands which could be patented and be
converted to private control.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres of disturbance by ownership;
• Changes in land use from existing land management plans; and,
• Number of acres of public lands which could be patented and become private land.
1.4.17 Socioeconomics (Key Issue)
Address the social, lifestyle, and economic impacts on local residents of Okanogan and Ferry
Counties. Areas of concern include: impacts to the nearby communities such as housing, utilities,
employment; the influx of workers and their families; the Crown Jewel Project's effect on housing
demand, public services, community services, and present lifestyles; and, the effects of temporary
and permanent mine shutdown.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Person-years of employment, annual/life of the Crown Jewel Project;
• Payroll, annual/life of the Crown Jewel Project;
• Anticipated population increase, Crown Jewel Project related/cumulative;
• Anticipated school enrollment effects. Crown Jewel Project related/cumulative;
• Anticipated permanent housing demand. Crown Jewel Project related/cumulative; and.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-12
• Anticipated tax revenues, annual/life of the Crown Jewel Project.
1.4.18 Scenic Resources
Minimize the impacts to scenery of the Crown Jewel Project from both surrounding viewpoints and
on-site. The concerns include: impacts to scenery of the mine pit, waste rock disposal areas,
tailings impoundment, and other Crown Jewel Project related facilities (including off-site facilities)
during the Crown Jewel Project and for the long-term. Another concern is the impact, from lights
when operating at night.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Night visibility of the Crown Jewel Project from the Oroville-Toroda Road and Canadian
Highway 3 west of Rock Creek; and,
• Scenic Quality Objectives met by the Crown Jewel Project.
1.4.19 Health/Safety
Protect worker health and safety. Identify the emergency response measures that would be
available in the event of chemical spills, fire, or explosion. Areas of concerns for worker health and
safety include: the risks from the use of chemicals, explosives, underground operations, and heavy
equipment. The expressed concerns for the Crown Jewel Project include the possibility of an
accident that would necessitate an emergency response and the potential for chemical spills, fires,
or explosions.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Likelihood of a chemical spill; and,
• Predicted number of industrial accidents.
1.4.20 Transportation
Address traffic impacts created by the Crown Jewel Project and the potential for accidents. Areas
of concern include: the potential for accidents and spills of materials in transit, as well as the risks
and advantages of using particular travel routes for employees and supplies.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Additional number of vehicles per day;
• Percent increase in traffic;
• Number of accidents involving chemical supply vehicles; and,
• Changes in total number of accidents, involving Crown Jewel Project employee and/or supply
routes.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-13
1.5 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS/NO VARIATION BETWEEN
ALTERNATIVES
1.5.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Crown Jewel Project is not located in or adjacent to a corridor of a designated, eligible or
potentially eligible wild and scenic river.
1.5.2 Trails
There are no effects anticipated on the presently maintained trail network.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-14
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The discussion of alternatives is the foundation of the environmental impact statement (EIS)
process (40 CFR 1502.14 and Chapter 197-11-400 WAC). This foundation consists of the
development of a range of reasonable alternatives. The agencies have explored and objectively
evaluated numerous Crown Jewel Project components during the selection and development of the
alternatives which include the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action. In total, seven
alternatives (six action and the no action) have been developed for evaluation in this EIS.
Alternatives have been developed and analyzed to address social and environmental issues, to
respond to public and agency concerns and input, and to satisfy regulations of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Both
federal and state regulations require that an EIS discuss alternatives to the Proposed Action,
including the No Action Alternative. The objective of developing the alternatives for the Crown
Jewel Project is to provide various agency decision makers and the public with a range of
reasonable alternatives for consideration.
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
The first step in developing alternatives involved identifying the Crown Jewel Project components.
The identified components (facilities or activities) included:
• Mining Methods; • Supply Transportation;
• Operating Schedule; • Water Supply;
• Production Schedule; • Water Storage;
• Waste Rock Disposal; • Water Use;
• Ore Processing; • Power Supply;
• Cyanide Destruction; • Fuel Storage;
• Tailings Disposal; • Sanitary Waste Disposal;
• Tailings Embankment Construction; • Solid Waste Disposal; and,
• Tailings Liner Design; • Reclamation.
• Employee Transportation;
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
A brief summary of the Crown Jewel Project alternatives assembled by the lead agencies is
presented in this section.
All of the action alternatives would require an amendment to the Okanogan Forest Plan which
would be part of the EIS document.
Table 5-2, Alternative Comparison Summary, presents a comparison of selected major components
of the alternatives developed for the Crown Jewel Project, while Table S-3, Acreage Summary,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
5
I
r>
•*
^
TABLE S-2, ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY
Mining Method
Operating
Schedule
Production
Schedule
Project Life
Employment
Local Hire (%)
Area of
Disturbance
Mill Process
Ore Reserve1
Reserve (oz)
Minable Ounces
Grade (oz/ton)
Mill Recovery (%)
Recovered (oz)
Tailings Location
Waste Rock
Disposal2
Supply Route
Site Reclamation
Alternative
A
Reclamation Only
Daylight hours.
Summer months
Not Applicable
1 year
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: 1
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: «• 4 people
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: 100
«* 55 acres
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Exploration roads
and drill sites
B
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 44 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
787 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,678,000
1,678,000
0.18
87
- 1 ,460,000 oz
Marias Creek
54 mm yd3
2 disposal areas: North
(A) and South (B) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open; Facilities
removed; Site
re vegetated.
C
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
6 years
Const: 1
Oper: 4
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 25
Oper: 40
Rec: 95
41 5 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,355,569
934,300
0.25
89
» 831 ,530 oz
Marias Creek
- 500,000 yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Adits
within Area A
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 1 20 - Site
Possible
subsidence;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
D
Surface (open pit) /
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
8 years
Const: 1
Oper: 6
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 30
Oper: 50
Rec: 95
558 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,520,149
1,261,600
0.20
88
>* 1,1 10,200 oz
Marias Creek
1 9 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Pit within
Area A
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open; Possible
subsidence; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
E
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 44 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
928 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,678,000
1 ,678,000
0.18
87
=> 1 ,460,OOO oz
Marias Creek
48 mm yd3
2 disposal areas:
North (I) and South (C)
of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit partially backfilled;
Facilities removed; Site
revegetated.
F
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
Mill 24 hours/day
Mine 1 2 hours/day
1 ,500 tons/day
33 years
Const: 1
Oper: 1 6
Rec: 1 6
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 25 people
Rec: 75 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
81 7 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1 ,678,OOO
1,678,000
0.18
87
" 1 ,460,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 (temp) stockpile:
North (I) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit backfilled; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
G
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 210 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
893 acres
Flotation
1,678,000
1,678,000
0.18
52(flot) + 87(CN)
- 759,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North (J) of Pit
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Note: 1. Based on data requested from the Proponent; Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Draft Alternative: Request For Additional Information, July 7, 1993. Complete
feasibility studies have not been conducted for all alternatives. Alternatives, B, E, F, and G have differing Crown Jewel Project economics; studies may result in different cut-off
grades and different ore reserves for these alternatives.
2. Refer to Figure 2.2. Waste Rock Disposal Area Options, in the final EIS, for general locations.
5°
to
CO
I
CO
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-16
TABLE S-3, ACREAGE SUMMARY
Surface Facility
Waste Rock Stockpile(s)
Tailings Facility (includes everything
within wildlife fence)
Mill and Ore Processing Facility
Pit Area (includes 100 foot buffer
zone)
Exploration and Production Adits
Subsidence Area
Topsoil Stockpiles
Ore Stockpile Area (includes water
storage tanks and crusher access)
Main Access road (2.0 miles in length
by 10O' wide)
Haul Roads
Access Roads (vary in length by 50'
wide)
Tailings Slurry Pipeline (vary in length
by 24' wide)
Ancillary facilities, including Soil
Borrow Pits and rock Quarries
Water Supply Pipeline
Water Storage Reservoir
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir Area)
Power Line Right-of-Way
Total Surface Disturbance (acres)
Alternative
A
55'
55
B
288
101
16
1382
48
6
<24)3
48
6
4
35
10
35
4
24
787*
C
26
89
14
9
27
29
12
24
30
20
4
58
10
35
4
24
415
O
98
101
16
73
8
3
53
12
24
35
20
4
38
10
35
4
24
558
E
379
101
16
138
75
12
24
48
19
4
39
10
35
4
24
928
F
215
157
16
138
63
12
24
48
28
4
39
9
35
4
24
817
G
294
137
16
138
72
12
24
63
15
4
95
9
35
4
24
893
Notes: 1. Unreclaimed acreage associated with exploration activities.
2. The Proponent's Plan of Operation included a pit area of 116 acres. A 22 acre safety buffer
zone has been added by lead agencies to aid in comparison with Alternative E, F, and G.
3. Acreages not included in integrated Plan of Operations.
4. Compares acreage on equal basis with other alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-17
presents a breakdown of acres disturbed by various Crown Jewel Project facilities and
components.
2.2.1 Alternative A - No Action
This alternative, required by both NEPA and SEPA, would preclude Crown Jewel Project
development, but it would not change previous decisions regarding mineral exploration.
Reclamation of the Crown Jewel Project site from impacts of previous exploration activities would
begin as soon as feasible as described in previous NEPA documents. This alternative provides the
basis and existing condition against which the other action alternatives are compared.
2.2.2 Alternative B - Proposed Action
This alternative proposes an open pit mine with two waste rock disposal areas; one disposal area
located to the north of the pit area and the other located south of the pit area. The facility would
operate 24 hours per day, employ about 144 people during operations, and produce an average of
3,000 tons of ore per day. The life of the operation would be ten years: one year for construction,
eight years of operation, and one year for completion of most physical reclamation. Crushing
would be conducted below ground level; grinding and milling would be above ground in an enclosed
building. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the tank cyanidation process and
carbon-in-leach (CIL) gold recovery. An estimated 1,460,000 ounces of gold would be recovered.
Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using the cyanide destruction process consisting
of S02/Air/Oxidation (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed in an engineered facility at the
head of the Marias Creek drainage. The final pit would not be backfilled. The north part of the
ultimate pit would be allowed to partially fill with water, and eventually discharge via the Gold
Bowl drainage to Nicholson Creek. Filling the lake would be expedited by using water pumped
from the Starrem Reservoir. This enhanced pit lake filling would take about five years, thus
delaying reclamation of the Starrem Reservoir and associated facilities for a period of approximately
six years. Busing would be provided for employee transport to the Crown Jewel site from locations
in or near Oroville. The supply route would access the Crown Jewel Project from the south
through Wauconda, along the Toroda Creek Road and via Beaver Canyon. Figure S-3, Alternative B
- Operational Site Plan, illustrates the site plan, while Table S-4, Summary of Alternative B, depicts
the general components, employment predictions, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed,
and surface area disturbance of the components.
2.2.3 Alternative C
This alternative proposes that ore be extracted by underground methods. The facility would
operate 24 hours per day, employ 225 people during operations, and produce an average of 3,000
tons of ore per day. The life of the operation would be six years: one year for construction, four
years of operation, and one year for the completion of most reclamation. Crushing, grinding, and
milling would be conducted above ground. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the
tank cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the cyanide destruct process consisting of SO2/Air/Oxidation (INCO Process). Tailings would
be placed in an engineered facility at the head of Marias Creek drainage. Waste rock from
underground development would be placed in a north disposal area. A surface quarry would be
required for rock material to construct tailings embankments located in the Marias Creek drainage,
and another quarry would be located on the Buckhorn Ridge for backfill into the mine workings.
Employee busing would be provided to the site from locations in or near Oroville. Supplies would
be hauled from Oroville to Chesaw and then via a south access route to the Crown Jewel Project
site. This alternative would produce about 57% of the gold (about 831,500 ounces) compared to
the surface (open pit) mining proposed by Alternative B. Figure S-4, Alternative C - Operational
Site Plan, illustrates the site plan, while Table S-5, Summary of Alternative C, depicts the general
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-18
R 30 E R 31 E
I SEDIMENT POND
\ X ~
T
40
N
LEGEND
| | WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA A |
ft innAr K}ti">hnlenn 1 i
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
(Upper Nicholson!
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA B
(Upper Marias!
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
FILENAME CJSF-3\DWG
DATE 12-03-96
FIGURE S-3, ALTERNATIVE B
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-19
TABLE S-4. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE B
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE'1'; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 144
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 469 59
BLM 189 24
WADNR 13 2
Private 116 15
Total 787 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acre*)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 288
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138'21
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 48
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 6
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 6
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 35
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line right-of-Way 24
Total 787
Note*: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
2. The Proponent's plan of operation included a pit area of 116 acres. A 22 acre safety buffer zone
has been added by the lead agencies since an area 100 feet wide around the pit would need to be
cleared so trees could not fall into the pit.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-20
R 30 E R 31 E
RECOVERY
SOLUTION
COLLECTION
POND
LEGEND
| [ UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
QUARRY AREA
[ | TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
[ :'. | SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
— • — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
&D POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE ZONE
FILENAME CJSF-4DWG
DATE 11-12-96
FIGURE S-4, ALTERNATIVE C
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-21
TABLE S-5, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE C
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Underground
• Room & Pillar
• Sublevel Sloping
• Post & Pillar
• Glory Hole
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of facilities)
Crushing Surface
Grinding Surface
Milting Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Rock Quarry 2 Quarries
• Tailings Area
• Backfill Site
Reclamation Adits Sealed; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE111; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-5 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 6 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 266 64
BLM 70 17
WADNR 20 5
Private 59 14
Total 415 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area 26
Tailings Facility 89
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 14
Subsidence Zone 27
Rock Quarries 25
Topsoil Stockpiles 29
Mine Adits 9
Ora Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 30
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 20
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 33
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 415
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-22
components, employment predictions, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface
area disturbance of the components.
2.2.4 Alternative D
This alternative would extract ore from the north portion of the ore body by surface mining and
would mine the southern portion of the ore body by underground methods. The operation would
run 24 hours per day, employ about 225 people during operations, and produce an average of
3,000 tons of ore per day. The life of the operation would be eight years: one year for
construction, six years for operation, and one year for the completion of most 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. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using the cyanide destruction process
consisting of S02/Air/Oxidation (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed in an engineered
facility in the Marias Creek drainage. Waste rock would be placed in a north disposal area location.
Some waste rock would be used for backfill in the underground mine. Final reclamation would
include leaving the north part of the ultimate pit open to partially fill with water, and eventually
discharge via the Gold Bowl drainage to Nicholson Creek. Employee busing would be provided to
the site from locations in or near Oroville. The supply route would access the Crown Jewel Project
from the south through Wauconda, along the Toroda Creek Road, via Beaver Canyon. This
alternative would recover about 76% of the gold reserve (about 1,110,200 ounces) available to
strictly surface mining. Figure S-5, Alternative D - Operational Site Plan, illustrates the site plan,
while Table S-6, Summary of Alternative D, depicts the general components, employment
predictions, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the
components.
2.2.5 Alternative E
This alternative proposes an open pit mine with two waste rock disposal areas located in the same
general areas as Alternative B, but these waste rock disposal areas were reconfigured to have
gentler slopes and to avoid placement on some steeper natural slopes. The Proponent would be
required to schedule the operation to completely mine out the north pit before finishing the south
pit so that waste rock from the south pit could be used to partially refill the north pit.
Approximately 6.0 million cubic yards (10.5 million tons) of waste rock would be used to partially
refill the north pit so no permanent post-mining lake would be formed. The operation would run 24
hours per day, employ approximately 144 people during operations, and produce an average of
3,000 tons of ore per day. The life of the operation would be 10 years: one year for construction,
eight years of operation, and one year to complete 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. An
estimated 1,460,000 ounces of gold would be recovered. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be
reduced using the cyanide destruction process consisting of S02/Air/Oxidation (INCO Process). The
tailings would be placed in a designed facility in the Marias Creek drainage. Final reclamation
would include partially backfilling the final pit to achieve drainage and reestablish desirable
topography. Employee busing would be provided to the site from locations in or near Oroville. The
supply route would access the Project from the south through Wauconda, along the Toroda Creek
Road and via Beaver Canyon. Figure S-6, Alternative E - Operational Site Plan, illustrates the site
plan, while Table 5-7, Summary of Alternative E, depicts the general components, employment
predictions, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the
components.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-23
R 30 E R 31 E
[WATER STORAGE
r \
OFFICE, WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP COMPLEX
LEGEND
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
(Upper Nicholson)
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS, SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
. _ PACIUTV AREA BOUNDARY
(I) POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE ZONf
CJSF-5DW3
FIGURE S-5, ALTERNATIVE D
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page 5-24
TABLE S-6, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE D
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Open Pit and Underground
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of open pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Adits Sealed
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE"1; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-7 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 8 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 292 52
BLM 147 26
WADNR 20 4
Private 99 18
Total 558 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acre*)
Waste Rock Disposal Area 98
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 73
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 53
Mine Adits 8
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 35
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 20
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 41
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 558
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-25
R 30 E R 31 E
OFFICE, WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP COMPLEX
LEGE/VD
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA I | _ ]
(Upper N,cholson) r— j
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA C -
(Upper Manas South)
-- • — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
SURFAC£ FAClLlTIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
I | TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
[ - ':| SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
FILENAME CJSF-Sowr,
DATE 11-12-96
FIGURE S-6, ALTERNATIVE E
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-26
TABLE S-7, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE E
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Partial Pit Backfill to Achieve Drainage from Pit
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE"1; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 < 144
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 575 62
BLM 195 21
WADNR 47 5
Private 111 12
Total 928 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 379
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 75
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 19
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 928
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-27
2.2.6 Alternative F
This alternative consists of an open pit mine with a single temporary waste rock stockpile area
located to the north of the pit area. The mine would operate 12 hours per day (day shift)
producing an average of 1,500 tons of ore per day. The mill would operate 24 hours per day to
process the 1,500 tons of ore extracted per day. The life of the operation would be 33 years: one
year for construction, 16 years of operation, and 16 years to complete reclamation, that would
primarily involve the backfilling of the mine pit. About 125 people would be employed during
operations. Gold extraction would use conventional milling employing tank cyanidation process and
CIL gold recovery. An estimated 1,460,000 ounces of gold would be recovered. Residual cyanide
in the tailings would be reduced using the cyanide destruction process consisting of
S02/Air/Oxidation (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed in an engineered facility in the
Nicholson Creek drainage. Final reclamation would include returning about 54 million cubic yards
of waste rock to the final pit. Employee busing would be provided to the site from locations in or
near Oroville. The supply route would access the Project from the south through Wauconda, along
the Toroda Creek Road, and via Beaver Canyon. Figure S-7, Alternative F - Operational Site Plan,
illustrates the site plan, while Table S-8, Summary of Alternative F, depicts the general
components, employment predictions, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface
area disturbance of the components.
This alternative would require a smaller mill than proposed in Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Complete backfilling of the open pit would require a considerable investment in equipment and
personnel during periods where there would be no monetary return from the sale of the gold
values. There could be substantially increased operating costs during gold production years to
develop a sinking fund to pay for the backfilling activities. Given economic feasibility
considerations, totally different ore reserves would result.
2.2.7 Alternative G
This alternative consists of an open pit mine with a single permanent waste rock disposal area
located to the north of the pit area. The operation would run 24 hours per day, employ about 210
people during operations, and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. The life of the
operation would be ten years: one year of construction, eight years of operation, and one year to
complete most reclamation. Crushing would be conducted below ground level. Grinding and
milling would be conducted above ground. The gold bearing material would be concentrated using
a flotation process. The concentrate would be transported off-site to undergo cyanidation
processing to recover the gold values. The non-concentrate from the flotation process would be
placed in a designed tailings impoundment located in the Nicholson Creek drainage. Final
reclamation would include leaving the north part of the ultimate pit open to partially fill with water,
and eventually discharge via the Gold Bowl drainage to Nicholson Creek. Employee busing would
be provided to the site from locations in or near Oroville. Supplies would be hauled from Oroville to
Chesaw and then via the south access route to the Crown Jewel Project site. Figure S-8,
Alternative G - Operational Site Plan, illustrates the site plan, while Table S-9, Summary of
Alternative G, depicts the general components, employment predictions, various land ownership
acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the components.
This alternative would require a different mill than proposed in the other action alternatives.
Preliminary analytical work completed for a flotation process on the Crown Jewel Project
mineralized zones indicated that approximately 45% of the gold values could be recovered (about
759,000 ounces) versus an estimated 87% recoverable utilizing conventional cyanidzation
processing. This reduction would affect the economic feasibility of this alternative.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-28
R 30 E R 31 E
AMMONIUM
NITRATE
STORAGE
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
LEGEND
WASTE ROCK STOCKPILE I
(Upper Nicholsonl
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS, SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
— FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
FILENAME CJSF-~> DWG
DATE 11-a.SH
FIGURE S-7, ALTERNATIVE F
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-29
TABLE S-8, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE F
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 1,500 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Complete Pit Backfill; No Permanent Waste Rock Disposal Areas
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE'1'; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-17 125
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 18-33 75
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 527 64
BLM 153 19
WADNR 38 5
Private 99 12
Total 817 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area (Temporary) 215
Tailings Facility 157
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 63
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 28
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 817
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-30
R 30 E R 31 E
26
T
40
N
MILL AND ORE
PROCESSING
FACILITY
I
r
;Y^
OFFICE.
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
30
LEGEND
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA J
(North Nicholson!
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
• — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
FILEKXUE CJSF-SDWO
M7E 11-12-96
FIGURE S-8, ALTERNATIVE G
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-31
TABLE S-9, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE G
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Rotation, Off-Site Cyanidation, and Smelting
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction Not Applicable
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE'11; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 21O
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 544 61
BLM 197 22
WADNR 44 5
Private 108 12
Total 893 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area 294
Tailings Facility 137
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 72
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 63
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 15
Tailings Slurry Pipeline •. 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 45
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 893
Not*: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-32
2.2.8 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study
The following additional alternatives were considered between the draft and final EIS, but were
eliminated from detailed study in the final EIS for the reasons stated.
2.2.8.1 Alternative B - Unmodified
The original Alternative B (identified here as Alternative B - Unmodified) was eliminated because it
so closely duplicated the modified Alternative B that was evaluated in the final EIS. Modifications
were made by the Proponent to the original Alternative B as a result of comments received on the
draft EIS.
2.2.8.2 Highlands Rural Character Alternative
Because the components of the suggested alternative have been considered in other action
alternatives, it was determined that the analysis of this "stand-alone" alternative was not
necessary.
2.2.8.3 Alternative E - Modified
Upon further analysis, it was determined that there were unanticipated environmental and technical
problems with the implementation of this alternative.
2.2.8.4 EPA's Suggested Preferred Alternative
Most of the alternative components suggested by EPA were included in one or more of the action
alternatives (B through G) with the exception of placing waste rock in a disposal area to the south
of the proposed mine and complete backfill of the underground mine. It is not physically possible
to place the "30 million cubic yards" of waste rock into a disposal area south of the mine pit.
Likewise, complete backfilling of the underground mining operation would be difficult given the
proposed extraction techniques required for the geologic ore configuration.
2.3 RECLAMATION
The purpose of reclamation is to return the disturbed areas to a stabilized and productive condition
following mining and milling activities and protect long-term land, water, and air resources in the
area. Reclamation policies of the Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR are to ensure the return of
disturbed lands to productive uses consistent with land management policies.
The current land use of the site is primarily for timber management, rangeland for cattle grazing,
wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation. Although much of the area has previously been
harvested for timber, there is relatively little available, high quality forage suitable for wildlife use
and domestic grazing. The emphasis of the reclamation plan would be to create forested habitats,
similar to what existed prior to exploration, and future deer winter range, where appropriate.
The reclamation plan for any of the action alternatives would incorporate the following basic goals:
• Establishment of stable surface, topographic, and drainage conditions that are compatible
with the surrounding landscape and control erosion, water quality, and air quality impacts
from the operation;
• Establishment of surface soil conditions that are conducive to regeneration of a stable
plant community through removal, stockpiling, and reapplication of suitable topsoil and
cover soil material;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-33
• Revegetation of disturbed areas using species adapted to site conditions and approved by
the appropriate agencies in order to establish a long-term productive, self-sustaining, biotic
community compatible with currently identified future land uses and comparable to what
existed on the site prior to exploration;
• Consideration of public safety including posting warning signs, limiting public access, and
the stabilizing or removing of structures or landforms created as a result of the mining
activities that could constitute a public hazard;
• Drain/dewater tailings solids, dewater the tailings pond, cover the tailings with soil, and
revegetate the tailings facility; and,
• Re-establishment of access routes across the Crown Jewel Project site where desired by
the appropriate land management agencies.
Vegetation removal and topsoil salvage would be conducted by the Proponent annually just ahead
of the need for the area for Crown Jewel Project facilities and activities in order to promote
successful reclamation at the end of mining.
Interim (concurrent) and segmental reclamation measures would be conducted as appropriate on
certain components (e.g., waste rock disposal areas) to prevent degradation of water quality to
reduce erosion and promote revegetation of disturbed areas. These measures would be described
in permits and operating plans (e.g., waste rock handling and water monitoring). These
reclamation measures would be completed during the ongoing mining activities. Final reclamation
activities would be scheduled to occur as soon as practical after mining activities are completed.
The statutory and regulatory authority of the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR would
require the Proponent to execute reclamation and environmental protection performance security
agreements prior to permit and plan approvals from these agencies. The agreements would ensure
that sufficient funds would be available to properly reclaim and restore the areas disturbed at the
Crown Jewel Project in the event that the Proponent would be unable to meet its reclamation
obligations.
The post-mining land uses on federal lands would be managed for replacement timber, grazing,
wildlife habitat, and dispersed recreation or the land use emphasis developed for the area through
Forest Service or BLM Management Plan revisions.
2.4 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION
Management and mitigation practices at the proposed Crown Jewel Project would be based on
federal, state, and local laws and regulations, current technology, best management practices, and
company policies. The purpose of these practices is to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to the
environment and to reclaim disturbed areas. Implementation of management and mitigation
measures would primarily be the responsibility of the Proponent. Enforcement of management and
mitigation measures would be the responsibility of the agencies issuing permits and approvals for
the Crown Jewel Project. The management requirements and mitigation measures found in this
section were either proposed by the Proponent, required by state or federal regulations, or were
developed to respond to impacts identified in the EIS process.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-34
2.4.1 Air Quality
2.4.1.1 Goal: Control fugitive dust from mill and related operations.
All applicable state and federal air quality standards must be met, which would require
BACT (Best Available Control Technology) to control emissions as part of the WADOE
Notice of Construction, Air Quality Permit.
2.4.1.2 Goal: Minimize fugitive dust from roads while allowing for efficient, safe, and economic
use of haulage equipment.
Dust suppression programs would be required for haul roads which would involve periodic
watering to control fugitive dust generation and/or, if permitted, a chemical treatment.
The Proponent would control dust on the Bolster Creek Road, where necessary, during
reservoir construction. The Proponent would control dust on the Pontiac Ridge Road,
where necessary, with water or chemical treatment approved by the Okanogan County
Engineer.
2.4.1.3 Goal: Minimize smoke impacts of slash burning to population centers and Class I
airsheds.
Stash burning, during clearing operations, would comply with WADNR burning permit
requirements. Slash from timber harvest could be stockpiled for replacement of large
woody debris on reclaimed areas or chipped and utilized as mulch.
2.4.1.4 Goal: Minimize traffic to the site and attendant impacts.
The Proponent would provide busing or van pooling for employees and otherwise minimize
traffic to the site.
2.4.2 Heritage Resources
2.4.2.1 Goal: Ensure protection of sites potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places or mitigate effects to such sites.
Heritage resources identified during pre-Project baseline surveys would be protected
through avoidance, where possible, and data recovery where it is not possible to avoid
identified sites. Impacts to the Gold Axe site would be mitigated through data recovery
prior to the commencement of activities that would further disturb the site. If additional
heritage resources are identified during Crown Jewel Project activities, the Plans of
Operations would require protection and possible work stoppages until the site can be
evaluated and appropriate resource protective measures developed and implemented.
2.4.3 Cyanide and Other Chemicals
2.4.3.1 Goal: Maintain safe handling of hazardous chemicals and minimize the potential of
resource damage or personnel exposure occurring.
Hazardous chemicals would be transported via U.S. Department of Transportation certified
containers and transporters. Transportation and handling of sodium cyanide and other
chemical reagents would comply with Department of Transportation, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) rules and regulations. Specific procedures would be followed for the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-35
transportation, storage, and handling of sodium cyanide, lime, cement and other hazardous
chemicals.
2.4.3.2 Goal: Maintain safe handling of petroleum products and minimize the potential of
resource damage from a spill.
Fuel and other petroleum products at the site would be stored in above ground tanks
surrounded by designed and approved containment structures. The Proponent would
develop a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the operation as
required by Federal Oil Spill Prevention Regulation (40 CFR 112) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
2.4.4 Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid
2.4.4.1 Goal: Prevent spills/accidental releases; and, if a release occurs, minimize the impact
with quick responses, trained personnel, and appropriate accessible clean up
equipment.
The Proponent would maintain detailed plans for spill prevention and control of hazardous
materials. These plans would become part of the Forest Service and BLM Plans of
Operations prior to beginning any transport or storage of fuels, flammable liquids, and
hazardous or toxic materials. A minimum of three plans would be required of the
Proponent under different regulatory authorities. A brief description of these plans follow:
• A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC), as required by the
EPA under 40 CFR Part 112.
• A Hazardous Material Handling Plan would be developed with guidance from the
WADOE.
• A Transportation Spill Response Plan would be required by the Forest Service and
BLM for transport of hazardous materials on Forest and BLM roads.
2.4.4.2 Goal: Prevent fires; and, if a fire occurs, minimize the impact with quick responses,
trained personnel, and have appropriate accessible equipment.
A Fire Protection and Suppression Plan would be maintained for the Crown Jewel Project.
The fire codes and standards of the WADNR would apply. The Proponent would comply
with Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR procedures for protecting against starting wildfires
and procedures for assuring suppression of accidental wildfires. All equipment and
vehicles would meet fire preparedness requirements during the proclaimed fire season.
This plan would be included as part of the Plans of Operations filed with the Forest Service
and BLM.
2.4.4.3 Goal: Minimize accidents and reduce resource impacts if any occur.
A pilot vehicle would be used to escort trucks carrying hazardous materials and petroleum
products past Beth and Beaver Lakes and through Beaver Canyon, or through the town of
Chesaw (Alternatives C and G), to the mine site. The pilot vehicle would assure that
transports stay within the posted speed limits, provide emergency radio communication in
cases of an accident, and provide initial response in case of a spill.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-36
2.4.4.4 Goal: Provide local agencies with training in handling hazardous substances.
The Proponent would ensure that appropriate spill response and materials handling training
be provided to the local sheriff's departments, fire departments, and appropriate
administering agencies.
2.4.4.5 Goal: Maintain effectiveness of emergency response equipment.
Monthly, the Proponent would review storage and containment facilities, emergency first
aid and spill response materials, and radio communications equipment.
The Proponent would document the results of this monthly review and report the results of
that review to the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and Okanogan County Emergency
Services to ensure that emergency response requirements are being met.
2.4.4.6 Goal: Minimize the potential for accidents with school buses.
The Proponent would provide school bus schedules to suppliers and/or transporters.
2.4.4.7 Goal: Provide for safety of personnel and facilities.
The Proponent would maintain the necessary personnel and equipment to respond to fires
and/or medical emergencies at the mine site.
2.4.5 Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic Forming Capability
2.4.5.1 Goal: Prevent acid rock discharge from waste rock disposal areas, rock fills and
embankments.
The Proponent would be required to develop a waste rock management plan as part of
Crown Jewel Project permitting. This plan would address the potential for formation of
acid generating "hot spots" and prevention of acid rock drainage. The plan must be
approved by the WADOE, WADNR, BLM, and Forest Service prior to approval of the
NPDES permit. The BLM and Forest Service require a waste rock management plan as part
of the Plans of Operations.
2.4.5.2 Goal: Protect ground and surface water quality in case of unacceptable water
discharges.
Any water discharged from the mine site, including the mine pit or Crown Jewel Project
collection and infiltration ponds, must meet WADOE water quality permit requirements and
federal water quality standards. If water quality requirements are not met, appropriate
water treatment would be required.
2.4.5.3 Goal: Minimize nitrates available to water in the pit and waste rock disposal areas.
Potential nitrate contamination from blasting would be minimized by optimizing blast
conditions to improve oxidation of ANFO or other blasting agents.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-37
2.4.6 Geology and Geotechnical
2.4.6.1 Goal: Assure stability of waste rock disposal areas and designed embankments.
The waste rock disposal areas, the tailings facility, and the water reservoir embankment
would be maintained in a stable manner, both during operations and in the long-term
following Crown Jewel Project decommissioning and reclamation. The minimum static
safety factor for the waste rock disposal areas and tailings facility embankments would be
determined as part of the permits and approvals granted by the Forest Service, BLM,
WADOE, and WADNR. As necessary, slope angles, dumping heights, or crest
advancement would be reduced, or other measures taken, to increase waste rock disposal
area stability.
2.4.6.2 Goal: Protect people from straying into unsafe areas.
Fencing and warning signs would be posted around potential surface subsidence features
(Alternatives C and D) during operations and reclamation. These fences would be
maintained by the Proponent for at least six years after the completion of reclamation,
unless otherwise determined by the agencies.
2.4.7 Land Use
2.4.7.1 Goal: Minimize land and vegetation disturbances related to clearing during construction
and operation.
The Proponent would minimize disturbance by maintaining a compact operation. Timber
would be cleared only in those areas necessary for mining and milling activities. Remaining
herbaceous vegetation would be salvaged during soil removal operations. Timber and
vegetation would be left wherever possible to facilitate habitat connectivity. Erosion and
sediment control measures such as sediment collection ponds, segmental reclamation, and
temporary revegetation would be implemented to prevent downstream impacts.
2.4.7.2 Goal: Compensate grazing permittees for lost water sources.
Certain existing water source developments used by livestock are located inside the
proposed fenced area surrounding the mining and milling activities. Replacement water
troughs would be placed away from the water source and water sources would be
protected with cattle barriers to prevent trampling. Replacement water sources would be
maintained by the Proponent during the life of the mine and for at least six years after the
commencement of reclamation unless otherwise determined by the agencies.
2.4.7.3 Goal: Allow proper livestock movement from pasture to pasture and compensate for lost
ability to move cattle through the Crown Jewel Project area.
A stock trail would be created around the eastern side of the Crown Jewel Project to the
natural stock gathering area south of the Project.
2.4.7.4 Goal: Exclude cattle and people (visitors) from the Project area and provide safety zones.
Fences would be constructed and maintained around the entire area to be disturbed.
Fences would be constructed to exclude livestock from the Crown Jewel Project area
using a standard Forest Service 4 strand barbed wire fence. This fencing would be
designed to allow the movement of wildlife through the area and laid out with livestock
movement in mind.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-38
2.4.7.5 Goal: Prevent the establishment of new and potential invader noxious weeds from
entering the Crown Jewel Project area from construction equipment.
Before entering the National Forest and BLM land, all used earth moving and mill
equipment would be cleaned (washed) of soil and noxious weed seeds prior to-bringing the
equipment onto the Crown Jewel Project site.
2.4.8 Noise
2.4.8.1 Goal: Protect employees from noise.
The Proponent would comply with all Washington State and Okanogan County health and
safety requirements pertaining to noise generation. Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) governs worker health and safety which includes requiring hearing protection for
workers in high noise areas.
2.4.8.2 Goal: Minimize noise impacts on surrounding residences to daylight hours.
Minimize noise impacts to surrounding residences from the construction of the Starrem
Reservoir through construction practices that limit most noise making operations to
daylight hours while allowing flexibility for a reasonable work schedule. Night-time
operations would comply with WAC 173-60, RCW 70.107, and Okanogan County noise
ordinances.
2.4.9 Permitting and Financial Assurances (Performance Securities)
2.4.9.1 Goal: Assure the Proponent designs the mining operation in compliance with applicable
laws and regulations.
The Proponent must obtain any required approvals and permits from the federal, state, and
local agencies. Approval of the Plans of Operations by the Forest Service and BLM is
required prior to beginning any mining, milling, or other surface disturbing activities on
federal lands.
Approval of Plans of Operations would be conditioned upon compliance with the terms of
the other federal and state permits which govern the proposed actions of the Crown Jewel
Project mining and milling.
2.4.9.2 Goal: Ensure that adequate reclamation, restoration, and remediation of the land is
achieved following mining and milling activities or unforeseen events related
thereto.
The Proponent will be required to post reclamation and environmental protection
performance securities before construction, mining, and milling operations can begin. The
regulations of the Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR require that the Proponent submit a
reclamation performance security to ensure that adequate reclamation and restoration of
the land is achieved following exploration, mining, and milling activities. The reclamation
performance security, likely held by the WADNR so it would not need to be transferred if
patenting took place, would provide the government with sufficient funds to reclaim the
site, and provide environmental protection should the Proponent fail to do so. An
environmental protection performance security would be held by the WADOE. This
performance security would be designed to protect the public from financial liability related
to long-term impacts to the environment (including water quality) from failures of Crown
Jewel Project facilities or their operating systems.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-39
2.4.10 Recreation
2.4.10.1 Goal: Minimize unauthorized vehicles and personnel on the site.
General public access would not be allowed into the Crown Jewel Project due to safety
hazards. No unauthorized vehicles, personnel, or firearms would be permitted on the site.
Plans would be implemented to control public access such as fencing and posting to
prohibit unauthorized entry to hazardous areas. However, these plans would provide for
administrative traffic, as well as access for Forest permittees, contractors, or operators.
Public and administrative access on the closed portions of Forest Service and BLM roads
would be reestablished, as directed by the Forest Service and BLM, after the Crown Jewel
Project has been completed.
2.4.10.2 Goal: Control hunting and fishing for the security of the mine and safety of employees
and the public.
There would be no hunting or fishing during mine operation within the fenced enclosure.
The possession of firearms (except security guards), the discharging of firearms, and
hunting would be prohibited within the areas fenced around the mine area and facilities.
2.4.11 Socioeconomics
2.4.11.1 Goal: Provide local employment opportunities and minimize negative effects to
the local, social infrastructure.
The Proponent would work with local educational institutions to help provide local
employees trained to work at the Crown Jewel Project. The Proponent would maximize
local hiring, as practicable, by employing local contractors and workers, using the local job
service center and only going outside the local area to hire if an adequate pool of
candidates cannot be generated.
2.4.12 Soils
2.4.12.1 Goal: Recover sufficient soil to reclaim the mine site.
Soil material would be removed from the areas of Crown Jewel Project disturbance in
sufficient quantities to achieve the reclamation plan objectives. The soil removal plans
would be subject to the reclamation plan approvals from the Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR. Soil material, up to 5% of total volume, could be augmented through the
addition of wood chips from land clearing or the use of bio-solids.
2.4.12.2 Goal: Reestablish mycorrihizal fungi for those plants that need them in the soil
spread onto the site during reclamation.
Microbial activity would be measured in topsoil prior to redistribution. Topsoil would be
inoculated with mycorrihizal fungi, if needed.
2.4.12.3 Goal: Assure distribution of topsoil across the site at depths adequate for successful
revegetation to a forested environment and determine key factors for successful
revegetation.
A soil salvage and handling plan would be developed which would include the salvage and
reapplication of all suitable soil materials. Appropriate seed and planting mixtures and
mulching would be used for stabilization of the site. Revegetation test plots, which
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-40
include grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees, would be installed at the proposed waste rock
disposal areas and tailings facility to determine appropriate soil replacement depths and
vegetation species.
2.4.12.4 Goal: Stabilize disturbed areas from loss of soil.
As appropriate, suitable soils from quarries, borrow areas, power line, access roads,
diversion ditches, water pipelines, and the tailings slurry pipeline would be windrowed and
stabilized adjacent to each disturbance area until reclamation operations for these
disturbances begin.
2.4.13 Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality and Quantity
2.4.13.1 Goal: Control surface water flow to minimize erosion and downstream sedimentation
and implement corrective actions quickly to minimize impacts from sedimentation.
The Forest Service would require the Proponent to implement "best management
practices" for erosion and sediment control (Forest Service, 1988). Similarly, the BLM
regulations require prevention of unnecessary or undue degradation of Federal lands, both
on-site and off-site. Diversion structure and sediment trap maintenance would be
conducted by the Proponent to ensure short and long-term effectiveness of the erosion and
sediment control facilities.
Should substantial sedimentation occur, construction and operational activities responsible
for the sedimentation would be suspended or modified. Additional actions may be
implemented to reduce sediment delivery.
2.4.13.2 Goal: Minimize soil erosion sedimentation into the sediment traps and stream
sedimentation.
The Proponent would construct and maintain diversion ditches and sediment traps.
Diversion ditches would collect runoff from disturbed and cleared areas, and direct such
runoff to the sediment traps. The sediment traps would remove sediment from runoff
locations. Sediment and infiltration pond embankments would be stabilized with
vegetation or rock cover as soon as practicable after construction to provide for erosion
protection.
2.4.13.3 Goal: Minimize exposure of people and wildlife to dangerous cyanide levels.
The Proponent must assure that the hazardous constituent concentration in tailings
effluent at the outfall would not result in:
• Mortality of migratory waterfowl attracted to pooled water at the facility; and/or,
• Designation of tailings effluent as dangerous waste under Washington State
dangerous waste regulations.
The cyanide destruction system must be designed and operated to assure that no tailings
effluent at the outfall of the tailings facility designates as dangerous waste, according to a
representative sampling protocol, despite potential variation in cyanide destruction
effectiveness. Assurance of no discharge of dangerous waste would involve the following:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-41
1. The determination of the designation threshold. The designation threshold is the
WAD cyanide concentration in the tailings effluent at which it designates as
dangerous waste, based on fish bioassay testing.
2. The establishment of operational trigger thresholds. The trigger thresholds would
be the WAD cyanide concentration and duration thresholds in the tailings effluent
that would trigger operational adjustments to the cyanide destruction system in
order to avoid generation of tailings effluent that designates as a dangerous
waste. The duration threshold would take into account the lag times between a
given adjustment and measured changes in the WAD cyanide concentration and
the variability of the cyanide detoxification process. The WAD cyanide
concentration trigger must be lower than the designation threshold.
3. The institution of process monitoring and control measures.* Process monitoring
and control measures would provide for:
a. Monitoring and adjusting the reagent and catalyst additions to optimize
cyanide destruction; and,
b. Identification of operational adjustments to the cyanide destruction
system in response to exceedances of trigger thresholds.
4. The establishment of operational response measures or system design elements to
prevent placement of tailings effluent that designates as dangerous waste using a
representative sampling protocol. Operational response measures or system
design elements would consist of the following:
a. A response measure that requires cessation of the tailings effluent
discharge (from the INCO reactor vessel), with corresponding cessation of
mill feed, in order to respond to exceedance of the established trigger
thresholds; or, alternatively,
b. System design elements providing for the capture, containment, and/or
adequate cyanide destruction and reagent dissipation, of tailings effluent
that designates as a dangerous waste, before it could be discharged to
the tailings disposal facility.
5. The institution of compliance monitoring. Compliance monitoring would provide
for representative sampling of treated tailings effluent prior to placement in the
tailings facility to determine hazardous constituent concentration and enable
assessment with regard to established threshold concentrations.
The concentration of cyanide in the effluent discharged at the outfall to the
tailings impoundment would be stipulated as part of the NPDES Permit that would
be issued by WADOE, but the level would be no greater than 40 mg/l WAD
cyanide without the implementation of mitigation measures described in Section
2.4.18.12, Goal: Minimize wildlife exposure to toxic substances.
2.4.13.4 Goal: Maintain water quality above federal and state water quality standards for surface
and ground water.
The tailings disposal facility would be a closed circuit, zero-discharge system consisting of
a geomembrane double lined impoundment, leak detection system, and a lined recovery
solution collection pond in compliance with the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-42
Operations Act. The tailings disposal facility would be drained using a basin drain layer to
minimize head on the liners.
2.4.13.5 Goal: Meet Washington State Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards, human health
standards, and/or natural water quality background levels.
Water in the pit lake (or underground workings) that discharges to the Gold Bowl drainage
(Alternatives B, C, D, and G) or water discharging from springs and seeps that develop in
the pit backfill (Alternatives E and F) would be required to meet Washington State Aquatic
Life Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201 A) and human health standards (National
Toxic Rules: 40 CFR 131.36, which considers natural water quality background levels).
2.4.14 Transportation
2.4.14.1 Goal: Maintain road passage safety while reducing damage to trees and other resources
due to winter road maintenance.
Sufficient storage room, inside safety berms, would be provided for snow removal adjacent
to roadways. Snow would be removed or plowed regularly by the Proponent to minimize
snow packing and interference with day to day activities. Snow removal activities would
provide wildlife run outs. Road sanding would avoid the use of salt to the extent practical.
2.4.14.2 Goal: Reduce the number of visits to the Crown Jewel Project by vendor and supplier
representatives.
The Proponent would maintain an office away from the mine site for most personnel and
purchasing requirements.
2.4.14.3 Goal: Increase road safety and reduce the potential for supply vehicle accidents.
Supply deliveries to the Crown Jewel Project site would be limited to daylight hours except
in emergency situations. The Proponent would use a pilot vehicle to escort trucks carrying
hazardous materials and petroleum products through Beaver Canyon or through the town
of Chesaw (Alternatives C and G) to the mine site.
2.4.14.4 Goal: Ensure that the road system is safe and conforms to the natural resource
management objectives for the area, and that financial liabilities created by the
Crown Jewel Project roads are borne by the Proponent.
The Proponent's Forest and BLM Road Use Permits would include the following
provisions:
• Any upgrades on Forest roads for access to the Crown Jewel Project site would
meet Forest Service standards (FSH 7709.56 Road Preconstruction Handbook).
• A busing plan to address the transportation of most mine employees to the site
during operations.
• Contractors would comply with Forest Service, BLM, Washington State, and
Okanogan County rules for oversize and overweight loads.
• The Forest Service and BLM must approve location or design changes for access
roads on Forest Service or BLM managed lands.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-43
• The Proponent would be responsible for maintaining all signs, fencing, and other
features of the mine safety and security program.
• The Proponent would be responsible for deposits for, or doing, deferred (non-
routine) maintenance. The Proponent would be responsible for recurrent (grading,
cleaning culverts) maintenance as specified in the Forest Service and BLM Road
Use Permits.
• A designated Proponent representative and a Forest Service representative would
periodically inspect supply transport trucks for noxious weeds. All used
construction and mill equipment moved to the site would be power washed prior
to arrival on the Crown Jewel Project site to reduce the possibility that they are
transporting noxious weeds.
2.4.14.5 Goal: Maintain public safety.
For safety considerations, portions of Forest Road 3575-140 would be closed to public
access.
2.4.14.6 Goal: Increase safety on the transportation route.
If County Road 9480 is used for transportation of materials through Beaver Canyon, the
road junction with Forest Road 32 would be improved to increase safety.
2.4.15 Vegetation
2.4.15.1 Goal: Ensure proper utilization of the timber, disposal of slash, and protection of the
surface resources.
Timber on areas scheduled for disturbance by mining operations would be sold (except
timber used in mining operations) and cleared in accordance with Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR management requirements for timber harvesting. Negotiated contracts for timber
harvest would be entered into with the appropriate agency. Timber to be removed would
be designated by the appropriate agency representatives prior to removal.
2.4.15.2 Goal: Prevent the establishment of noxious weeds.
Certified noxious weed-free mulch and seed mixtures would be used to promptly reclaim
disturbed areas and control noxious weeds.
2.4.15.3 Goal: Control, contain, and eradicate new and potential invader noxious weeds.
The Proponent would be responsible for noxious weed control on federal lands within the
fenced perimeter. Hand pulling, hand digging, biological control, and approved herbicides
would be used for the control of noxious weeds, as discussed in the Noxious Weed
Management Plan, Crown Jewel Mine (Parametrix, 1996b). Only herbicides having Forest
Service and BLM approval would be used.
2.4.15.4 Goal: Minimize land disturbance and provide screening of roads, telephone lines, and
power lines.
Plans would be developed for the final location of telephone lines, power lines, and roads
to minimize the disturbance and provide screening of the facilities from view.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-44
2.4.15.5 Goal: Minimize soil erosion and sedimentation from disturbed sites during operations.
Interim revegetation would be required and would be designed to stabilize embankments or
structures (eg. topsoil stockpiles and road cuts and fills) which are expected to remain in
place, essentially undisturbed, until final reclamation.
2.4.16 Wetlands
2.4.16.1 Goal: Offset the Project's unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources.
The current mitigation proposal includes restoration, enhancement, and protection of
existing wetlands on and off-site. These sites include the Nicholson Creek Headwaters (12
acres), the frog pond (five acres), Bear Trap Canyon (five acres), Pine Chee Springs (29
acres), and Myers Creek near the Canadian border (50 acres). Final details of wetlands
mitigation would be determined in the Corps of Engineers and Okanogan County permits.
Mitigation, if on public land, would be in consultation with the appropriate land
management agency.
2.4.17 Scenic Resources
2.4.17.1 Goal: Minimize visual impacts of Crown Jewel Project buildings and structures.
The following scenic resource mitigation measures would be utilized:
• Retain vegetation and trees wherever possible to screen facilities and maintain a
forested appearance to the extent possible;
• To the extent possible, locate facilities where they can be screened;
• Plant native vegetation species to screen facilities;
• Design cuts, fills, and clearings to blend in with the surrounding topography; and,
• Use non-reflective earth-tone paints on all buildings and other features.
2.4.17.2 Goal: Minimize lighting impacts of the Crown Jewel Project from surrounding
viewpoints.
Exterior lighting would be kept to the minimum required for safety and security purposes.
Lights would be directed down towards the interior of the Crown Jewel Project site.
Permanently mounted lights should be sodium or a type of equal spectrum and intensity.
2.4.18 Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement
2.4.18.1 Goal: Facilitate movement of deer where game trails and the perimeter fence intersect.
The perimeter fence would be designed to keep cattle out while allowing for deer passage
in either direction. Special modifications would be used at obvious deer crossing sites.
These could include slight fence realignment or constructing pole fences for short
distances.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-45
2.4.18.2 Goal: Provide wildlife temporary security habitat to offset disturbance associated with
mining activities on Buckhom Mountain.
Effective road closures are proposed to control all access points into the Marias Creek
watershed in order to provide security habitat for deer and other wildlife. Vehicle access
would be limited to administrative use during operations and reclamation of the Crown
Jewel Project. If berms installed in area roads for wildlife mitigation or mine safety require
removal for administrative us.es, the benefiting function would be responsible for opening
and reclosing the road after use. The Proponent would be responsible for maintaining the
gates at both ends of the Marias Creek road, Forest Road 3550. Gates on side roads in
Marias Creek would be the responsibility of the Forest Service to maintain.
2.4.18.3 Goal: Design, construct, and maintain the tailings pond perimeter fence so that small
and large animals, that do not fly, would not have access.
A deer proof fence 96 inches above ground combined with a mesh fence (or other
acceptable material) 18 inches above and below ground, to exclude small animals, would
surround the tailings pond to restrict access. The below ground portion of the fence could
be installed in an "L" shape. Proper gate design, and operation would prevent access by
large and small mammals.
2.4.18.4 Goal: Have regular blasting times so that animals would have the best possibility to
acclimate to blast disturbances.
With the exception of emergencies, blasting would occur during daylight hours, at a
maximum of two times a day, normally at shift change or at regular intervals.
2.4.18.5 Goal: Minimize disturbance to wildlife within the Crown Jewel Project perimeter from
roaming dogs.
Employee owned dogs would not be allowed on the Crown Jewel Project site.
2.4.18.6 Goal: Replace snag habitat lost with mining activities by creating snags on adjacent
federal lands that would bring levels up to Interim Screening Guidelines.
Snags would be created in the Marias Creek, Nicholson Creek, and Ethel Creek watersheds
by topping and inoculation to compensate for snags lost during mining activities. At least
75% of the replacement snags should be greater than 21" diameter ponderosa pine and
western larch. If 21" diameter trees do not occur, all snags created should be greater than
16" in diameter. The number of snags to be created would be 3.5 times the number of
federal acres cleared.
2.4.18.7 Goal: Ensure that the reclamation species mix includes shrubs and small trees with
higher palatability to wildlife.
At least 15% of the species mix (including grass, shrubs and small trees), selected to
provide immediate soil stabilization during reclamation, would be represented by species
with higher palatability to wildlife users such as browsers and nectarivores. Success
criteria, with specific survival percentages would be developed as part of the reclamation
plan. The primary short-term objective of reclamation would be erosion control. A
secondary objective is to provide a diversity of plant species that encourage wildlife
recolonization.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-46
2.4.18.8 Goal: Prevent raptor electrocution.
Electric transmission lines at the Crown Jewel Project would be designed and constructed
to protect raptors in the area from potential electrocution hazards. The Crown Jewel
Project would use the 2-pole electric transmission design which not only protects raptors,
but provides better perches.
2.4.18.9 Goal: Reduce possible downstream, off-site impacts, from sedimentation of streams and
reductions in flows.
Fifteen fish structures in Marias Creek and 15 fish structures in Nicholson Creek would be
constructed, using native materials, to create pools in the lower reaches of Nicholson
Creek and Marias Creek. These structures would be designed to improve fish spawning
and rearing habitat, improve movement in the stream and reduce sedimentation in those
streams which may receive less flow due to Crown Jewel Project activities. These
structures would be installed in the first year of the Project. These structures are to
partially mitigate for probable Project related impacts to aquatic resources, as well as
provide structure for sediment trapping.
2.4.18.10 Goal: Protect fish populations in Myers Creek from the effects of reduced flows.
Implement the IFIM water diversion schedule for new Myers Creek water rights for the
diversion period of February 1 to July 31. These are summarized as minimum instream
flows of 6 cfs until April 1. After April 1, minimum instream flow would be increased to 9
cfs when the seven-day running average mean temperature meets or exceeds 6°C (45°F).
After April 1, minimum instream flow would be increased to 12 cfs when the 7-day
running average mean temperature meets or exceeds 8°C (46°F). Once the 12-cfs
instream flow requirement is implemented, it will remain the instream flow requirement
until July 31. The Proponent could not divert more than their water right.
2.4.18.11 Goal: To evaluate the magnitude of potential fish and aquatic organism
mortalities from the effects of Project related water quality problems.
Restore fish populations and other aquatic organisms affected by water
quality problems.
If accidental, short-term, water quality problems from the Crown Jewel Project result in
fish kills, an investigation, based on American Fishery Society (AFS) standards, would be
conducted to determine the reason for the deaths. Sampling sites would be randomly
selected and monitored by the Forest Service prior to Project implementation per AFS
guidelines. These sites would be monitored in the event of fish kills. Based on the results
of the investigation, a restoration plan to restore habitat populations for fish and other
species would be developed based on the Field Manual for the Investigation of Fish Kills by
USDI (USFWS/Resource Publication #177). This provides investigation guidelines and
direction for monetary compensation in the event of a fish kill.
2.4.18.12 Goal: Minimize wildlife exposure to toxic substances.
The Proponent would design and operate facilities that minimize wildlife exposure to
hazardous substances. Effective measures restricting wildlife access to the tailings pond
and reclaim solution collection pond are expected. These measures might include such
things as fences, floating pond covers, wildlife use deterrents, or detoxification. If cyanide
levels exceed 40 ppm WAD in the supernatant as it leaves the mill outlet and prior to
entering the tailings pond, then required mitigation would be fully functional that could
include exclusion (wildlife hazing or covering the supernatant) or additional detoxification
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-47
efforts (such as diluting the supernatant with recycled tailings pond water). Mitigation
needs to be fully functioning when the tailings discharge from the mill reaches 40 ppm
WAD cyanide. Consequently, when the tailings discharge monitoring (after INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation detoxification or end of pipe) reaches 35 ppm WAD cyanide, the
proposed mitigation would be mobilized, resulting in fully functional mitigation at 40 ppm
WAD cyanide at the discharge point.
2.4.18.13 Goal: Take advantage of potential nesting habitat provided by the pit wall.
Twelve recessed cavities providing nesting ledges for raptors would be blasted into the
upper third of the pit wall. These nesting ledges would be distributed in the north half of
the pit on the high walls.
2.4.18.14 Goal: Optimize opportunities to create wetlands and aquatic habitat in the pit.
Minimize wildlife exposures to toxic substances.
If a pit lake is created on Federal lands, once it has filled and if the water quality is
appropriate, the Proponent would plant the lake with native aquatic plant and animal
species. During reclamation, the Proponent would shape the final shoreline of the pit lake
to facilitate the growth of riparian and emergent vegetation, create shallows and gradual
slope areas along the lake for transition zones, and create an irregular shoreline through
selective placement of waste rock or blasting of pit walls. If pit lake water is determined
to pose a toxic risk to wildlife species, it will be fenced to keep terrestrial wildlife out and
other methods of discouraging avian wildlife use would be considered such as chemical
treatment or exclusion.
2.4.18.15 Goal: Provide perching structures for raptors and nesting platforms to partially
offset structural loss.
One raptor perch would be erected per 20 acres on reclaimed waste rock disposal areas.
Two power poles, on National Forest or BLM administered lands, would not be removed
during reclamation. These poles would be fitted with raptor nesting platforms.
2.4.18.16 Goal: Minimize potential wildlife mortality on haul roads.
Wildlife runouts would be created (every 1/4 mile), on both sides of the road, when
snowbanks along roads become more than two feet high so animals that get on haul roads
can escape. These runouts would be planned in conjunction with escape routes in safety
berms along haul roads.
2.4.18.17 Goal: Minimize impacts to eagle nest sites.
With the exception of emergency evacuations, Crown Jewel Project-related helicopter
flight paths would avoid flight paths over identified golden eagle nests.
2.4.18.18 Goal: Take advantage of the opportunity provided by wetlands creation.
After replacement wetlands are established providing a suitable food base for spotted
frogs, small populations of spotted frogs would be moved from the frog pond to facilitate
colonization and increase distribution. Bull frog populations would be controlled, if
necessary, during initial spotted frog columization to allow spotted frog populations to
become established and competitive with bull frogs.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-48
2.4.18.19 Goal: Replace large woody debris structure lost from the mining operations.
Down woody material would be replaced on reclaimed sites at a rate of seven tons per
acre. Less than 10% of this weight could be from stumps. Large diameter logs would be
preferred.
2.4.19 Wildlife Mitigation
2.14.19.1 Wildlife and Fish - Private Land Enhancement
In addition to reclamation and enhancement of public lands, privately-owned lands would be
acquired, protected, enhanced, and managed as mitigation for the loss of wildlife habitat values as
a result of the Crown Jewel Project. These include habitat values that are lost during mine
operations, during the 50 to 100 years until reclaimed lands provide similar structure and function
as existing stands, and for lands that cannot be reclaimed to habitats similar to those currently on
the site (e.g., pit lake). If patenting is approved, these patented lands become privately-owned and
available for long-term protection and management for wildlife.
Seven privately-owned areas have been identified as site for possible wildlife habitat mitigation.
These are:
• Pine Chee Springs (29 acres);
• Myers Creek near U.S. - Canada border (50 acres);
• Lost Creek Ranch (166 acres);
• Cow Camp - Upper Marias Creek (65 acres);
• Upper Nicholson Creek (20 acres);
• Lower Nicholson Creek (132 acres); and,
• Hungry Hollow (200 acres).
Long-term protection of private lands acquired for wildlife mitigation would be secured through
property purchase, conservation easements, placement of deed restrictions, transfer to a
conservation organization or state and Federal conservation agency, establishment of a non-profit
maintenance corporation, patents, or by other means.
2.4.20 Employee Training
2.4.20.1 Goal: Provide health, safety and environmental training for employees to assure
knowledge of important issues.
The Proponent would initiate a comprehensive program of training and education for
employees as needed. A major portion of training and education would involve the health
and safety aspects of the construction and operation of a mine and mill. The Proponent
would include environmental considerations in this training.
Environmental lessons would generally outline major rules and regulations which dictate
key aspects of the operation. Events leading to their origin, rationale, objectives, and
compliance would be reviewed. Environmental training and education would explain the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-49
"hows" and the "whys" to the individuals with the most potential to positively affect the
outcome - the mine employees.
2.4.21 Solid Waste (Garbage) Management
2.4.21.1 Goal: Meet existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
During construction, garbage would be contained and hauled off-site as appropriate.
Facilities such as portable toilets would be used to handle sanitary wastes. Spills of oil,
fuel, grease, and other materials would be cleaned up immediately.
Open burning of garbage and refuse would be prohibited at the mine site. All garbage
would be hauled to state-approved sanitary landfills. The Proponent would store any
garbage collected on-site in containers prior to removal. Wood and inert wastes such as
concrete could, during reclamation, be buried on-site in selected areas in accordance with
applicable county, state, and federal regulations or approvals and with the landowners
approval.
2.5 MONITORING MEASURES
Environmental monitoring programs, that meet the requirements of the WADOE, WADNR, BLM,
and Forest Service, would be implemented as part of any action alternative and would be included
in the Plans of Operations. Monitoring programs would be designed to quantify any measurable
environmental impacts accompanying construction, operation, reclamation, and post-closure
condition of the Crown Jewel Project with reference to pre-operational data obtained during
baseline monitoring. Impacts that result in violations of regulatory stipulations would require
alterations of Crown Jewel Project operations or additional mitigation actions. Any exceedances of
monitoring criteria would be brought to the attention of the WADNR, BLM, and Forest Service
within 30 days of discovery unless other timeframes are required by permit, law, or the Records of
Decision.
Periodic review of monitoring data would be required to assess the possible presence of short- or
long-term impacts resulting from the Crown Jewel Project.
The Proponent would prepare an annual report for monitoring studies. The Proponent would submit
the annual report to the agencies listed below by March 15th, and there would be a meeting with
the agencies to review the monitoring results and plan. Personnel from the Forest Service, BLM,
WADNR, WADOE, Corps of Engineers, and the Proponent and their representatives would be
invited to this meeting. All monitoring data provided to the WADOE in compliance with State
permits would be provided to the above agencies unless otherwise specified. Data would be
provided in the same format as provided to WADOE. An interpretive report may be required by the
Forest Service and/or BLM.
The agencies would maintain jurisdiction for monitoring the Crown Jewel Project through approvals
and permits issued to the Proponent.
As part of the protocol for each environmental monitoring plan, the Proponent would develop
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures for each of these areas. These procedures
would collectively comprise a QA/QC plan, the overall goal of which would be to ensure the
reliability and accuracy of monitoring information as it is acquired. Internal elements might include
procedures for redundant sampling such as random blind splits or other replication schemes, chain
of custody documentation, data logging, and error checking. External procedures might include
audits and data analyses by outside specialists, as well as oversight monitoring and data checking
conducted by various regulatory agencies.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-50
Monitoring plans must be developed prior to final Crown Jewel Project approval or permit issuance
and would be part of the Plans of Operations.
Monitoring objectives and measures are discussed in Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, of the
final EIS, for the following resource areas:
• Water Resources; • Transportation;
• Air Quality; • Reclamation;
• Geotechnical Issues; • Revegetation;
• Geochemistry; • Molybdenum Uptake in Tailings
Reclamation Vegetation Cover;
• Wildlife and Fish;
• Soil Replacement;
• Timber;
• Soil Storage; and,
• Noxious Weeds;
• Wetlands.
2.6 PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
The statutory and regulatory authority of the Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and WADOE would
require the Proponent to execute financial assurance agreements as part of any plan and permit
approvals from these agencies. These financial assurances would be in the form of reclamation
and environmental protection performance securities to ensure that sufficient funds would be
available to the agencies to properly reclaim the areas disturbed at the Crown Jewel Project in the
event that the Proponent would be unable or unwilling to meet reclamation and post-closure
obligations under the terms and conditions of the plan and permit approvals issued by the
previously mentioned agencies.
The environmental protection performance security is a requirement of the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act (Chapter 78.56 RCW) and would provide sufficient funding to
the WADOE for monitoring and clean-up of potential problems revealed during and after closure of
the Crown Jewel Project in the event the Proponent failed to meet various WADOE permit
commitments. Post-closure monitoring, water treatment, and other measures to prevent or control
long-term environmental impacts can also be required by the Forest Service (36 CFR 228A) and
BLM (43 CFR 3809) regulations. These regulations also authorize collection of performance
securities to assure such measures are implemented.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act allows for combining the reclamation and
environmental protection performance security into one held security.
No mining, milling, or other activities or operations can commence without approval of the plans
and appropriate permits required by the Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and WADOE, and the
execution of financial assurance agreements for sufficient reclamation and environmental protection
funds to the agencies responsible for the regulation of the construction, operation,
decommissioning, reclamation, and post-closure monitoring of the Crown Jewel Project.
Refer to Table S-10, Potential Environmental Protection and Reclamation Activity and Calculation
Methods, which shows how the amount of the performance securities could be calculated.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-51
TABLE S-10, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITY
AND CALCULATION METHODS
Activity
Calculation Method
RECLAMATION PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Mill Site Reclamation
Tailings Facility Closure
Water Quality Monitoring
Air Quality Monitoring
Waste Rock Disposal Area Reclamation
Open Pit Reclamation
Road Reclamation
Pipeline and Reservoir Reclamation
Other Disturbed Areas
Estimated cost for demolition, site hazard assessment,
cleanup and grading.
Estimated cost based on engineering evaluation to
decommission drain system, cover or cap facility, and
reclaim the surface.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting during the closure
and reclamation phase.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting during the closure
and reclamation phase.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Post-Reclamation Tailings Facility O&M
Post-Reclamation Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Treatment System Design & Construction
Water Treatment System Operations & Maintenance
Ground Water Remediation
Surface Water Remediation
Estimated cost based on engineering evaluation to
maintain any engineered works associated with the
closure plan.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting.
Estimated cost based on an engineering evaluation of
treatment needed to meet water quality criteria.
Treatment system for pH adjustment and metals
removal.
Estimated staffing and equipment needed to maintain
treatment system.
Estimated cost based on:
-Completion of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
-Implementation of a Clean-up Action Plan
-Public Participation
-Agency Oversight
-Contingency Fund
Estimated cost based on:
-Completion of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
-Implementation of a Clean-up Action Plan
-Public Participation
-Agency Oversight
-Contingency
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page 5-52
2.7 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Forest Service and BLM Preferred Alternative is Alternative B, the Proposed Action, as
presented in the final EIS including the reclamation, mitigation, monitoring, and performance
guarantee measures described in Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures; 2.12, Management and
Mitigation; 2.13, Monitoring Measures; and 2.14, Performance Securities. These measures are
summarized in this document from Section 2.3, Reclamation, through Section 2.6, Performance
Securities.
The WADOE has chosen not to select a Preferred Alternative in the final EIS. WADOE selection of
an alternative would be made as part of the WADOE permit decisions.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-53
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter summarizes the existing condition of the Crown Jewel Project study area and is
presented primarily to assist the reviewers in understanding the environmental consequences
presented for each resource in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences. Resource descriptions
focus on areas which would likely be affected by the proposed mining and milling activities.
A brief summary of the resource areas discussed in the Crown Jewel Project final EIS follows:
3.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE
The air quality and climate at the proposed Crown Jewel Project site are influenced by the rugged
topography, the prevailing westerly winds, and weather fronts from the Pacific Ocean and the
Arctic.
Background air pollutant concentrations at the mine site are low due to the lack of any major
industrial activity or residential areas in the vicinity. The limited amount of air quality monitoring
data that has been collected at the Crown Jewel site to date, confirms this. The closest industrial
activity is the lumbermill in Rock Creek, Canada about six miles north of the Crown Jewel Project
area. EPA designates non-attainment areas where air pollution has been demonstrated to exceed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). No such non-attainment areas have been
designated in Okanogan County. This indication that air quality is good must be tempered with the
knowledge that the amount of air quality monitoring which has been conducted in Okanogan
County is limited.
The Proponent installed a meteorological station at the mine site in 1991 and has operated
electronic monitors for temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. In August 1993, an
automated precipitation gage was added to the meteorological station. The annual and monthly-
average meteorological conditions at the mine site were calculated based on two to three years of
data collected at the mine site, which were correlated against historical data at other existing
meteorological stations.
The monthly temperature profiles at the mine site show a range from an average daily low of -8°F
in November to an average daily high of 88°F in July. Two years of daily-average temperature
readings at the mine site were correlated against simultaneous data collected by the National
Weather Service at Republic, Washington. The correlation showed that the mine site temperature
was between two to five degrees cooler than Republic.
Twenty-eight months of precipitation data from the mine site were correlated with simultaneous
precipitation data from Molson and Republic. The correlations showed that during the 28 months
of data collection the mine site experienced 43% more rain than Molson, and 28% more rain than
Republic. Based on those correlations, the annual precipitation at the mine site is calculated to be
20.0 inches per year. The monthly-average precipitation at the mine site was estimated by
distributing the 20.0 inches per year annual total according to monthly profiles from four local
weather stations: Republic, Molson, Chesaw, and Irene Mountain. Based on that distribution, the
wettest months at the mine site are May and June with monthly precipitation of 2.3 and 2.4 inches
respectively, and the driest months at the mine site are September and October with monthly
precipitation of 1.2 inches.
The monthly average snowfall at the mine site was estimated by assuming that all precipitation
that occurred on a day where the average temperature was below freezing fell as snow. The
calculated annual average snowfall at the mine site is 7.1 inches per year of water equivalent.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-54
No reliable pan evaporation data is available from the mine site. Pan evaporation rates at the mine
site were therefore calculated by adjusting historical data that was available from Republic, and
accounting for the difference in temperature, wind speed and humidity. The average annual pan
evaporation at the mine site was estimated to be 38.6 inches.
The seasonal wind direction and speed was derived from the on-site weather station during the
period January 1991 through April 1992. During the winter, the wind direction was generally from
the east. During the summer, spring, and autumn, the prevailing wind direction was generally from
the west.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Crown Jewel Project is located in north central Washington State, approximately three miles
south of the Canadian border. The topography of the general region ranges from steep to relatively
flat.
Elevations in the Crown Jewel Project area range from about 4,120 feet in the Marias Creek
drainage to about 5,600 feet at the summit of Buckhorn Mountain. The elevation of the town of
Chesaw and the Myers Creek drainage is slightly less than 3,000 feet.
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY
The geology of north-central Okanogan County is a complex association of igneous, metamorphic,
and sedimentary rocks. The larger valleys of the region contain surface materials of alluvium and
glacial deposits. The Crown Jewel Project ore body is hosted by a skarn deposit found in a
sequence of complexly folded and faulted volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks, shallow-to-deep-marine
clastic sedimentary rocks, and carbonate rocks. The geology of the deposit is based on the
detailed analysis and interpretation of approximately 280,000 feet of reverse circulation drilling and
80,000 feet of core drilling conducted by the Proponent.
A detailed geochemical testing program was performed for the proposed Crown Jewel Project to
assess the potential for waste rock, ore, and tailings materials at the mine to generate Acid Rock
Drainage (ARD) and leachate containing metals and radionuclides. A total of 89 waste rock
samples and ten ore and low grade ore samples were tested for the Proponent by Core
Laboratories. These samples were selected by the Proponent's geologists and geochemist to
represent the range of lithologic and mineralogical differences observed at the site. To confirm that
the samples were representative, an EIS Project team, consisting of Forest Service, BLM, WADOE,
and WADNR personnel, selected an additional 278 waste rock samples for analysis as well as
duplicates of eight samples previously tested by the Proponent. To assess geochemical conditions
in the tailings area, the Proponent prepared and tested 11 representative tailings samples.
Based on the geochemical testing that was performed for Crown Jewel Project, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
• Total metals (X-ray Fluorescence or XRF) and whole rock analyses of all test samples (waste
rock, ore, and tailings) showed the occurrence of several common trace metals that
potentially could occur in mine leachates. These metals include arsenic, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, thorium, tin, vanadium, and zinc.
Radionuclides occur in these materials at levels at or below natural background levels for
igneous and sedimentary rocks.
• Leachability tests indicated that the potential is low for short-term leaching of metals and
radionuclides from mine materials. Arsenic was detected at moderate concentrations (up to
0.34 mg/l) in leachates from five of the 11 tailings solid samples analyzed. Iron was
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-55
detected at low concentrations in leachates from 13 of 81 waste rock samples analyzed and
at a concentration of 2.06 mg/l in leachate from one tailings sample. Aluminum was
detected in seven of the ten ore leachates tested at concentrations of 0.06 to 0.60 mg/l and
in one of the 11 tailings solids leachates at a concentration of 0.10 mg/l.
• Analysis of the liquid portion of the tailings samples demonstrated that when detoxified
using the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process, the tailings pond water would be slightly alkaline
and contain elevated levels of total dissolved solids and nutrients, low to moderate trace
metal concentrations, and an average WAD cyanide concentration of less than 10 ppm.
• Acid base accounting (ABA) tests suggest that the overall, waste rock, ore, and tailings
generated at the site would not be acid generating under the different Crown Jewel Project
alternatives. Individually, two of the waste rock groups, magnetite skarns and altered
elastics, were found to be potentially acid generating based on ABA results. Of the ore
samples tested, two low grade magnetite skarn samples and one undifferentiated skarn
sample were also found to have a low to marginal potential to generate acid. Tailings
samples prepared from two of the three ore types were also found to have a marginal acid
generation potential based on ABA testing.
• ABA results from the EIS confirmation program confirmed the Proponent's findings regarding
the waste rock characteristics. Also, comparison of duplicate results from the two testing
programs indicated similar conclusions would be drawn regarding the ability to predict acid
producing potential in five of the eight samples tested with no statistical difference between
duplicate sample values.
• Waste rock samples collected from the proposed walls of the final mine pit were predicted
not to be acid generating based on average ABA results. Pit water quality modeling
determined that water collected in the proposed pit would not be acidic during or after
mining.
• Humidity cell tests (HCTs) were performed to further evaluate samples determined to be
potentially acid generating from the ABA tests. Results of these tests indicated two of
eleven unaltered andesite waste rock samples, three of seven garnet skarn waste rock
samples, one of nine magnetite skarn waste rock samples, two of three undifferentiated
skarn waste rock samples, and four of four altered elastics waste rock samples exhibited a
marginal to strong tendency to generate acid. Humidity cell testing of ore and tailings
samples indicated that these materials were not acid generating.
• Further analysis of the HCT leachates indicated that those waste rock samples that were
found to generate acid contained detectable levels of several trace metals including
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, thallium, and zinc.
• Based on the combined results of all ABA and HCT testing, the Forest Service, WADOE, and the
Proponent estimate that from 5% to 15% of the total waste rock mined under Alternatives B, E,
F, and G would be acid generating. A larger percentage of acid generating waste rock was
estimated for Alternative C (25% to 29%) and Alternative D (16%).
The WADOE and Forest Service used the geochemical test data presented in this section to predict
potential impacts from the Crown Jewel Project. Use of laboratory geochemical test data to
predict geochemical conditions in the field requires considerable professional judgement and, as a
result, can be controversial. It is understood that uncertainties will always exist in applying
laboratory data to predict field conditions. Due to this uncertainty, and whenever professional
judgement has allowed, biased (conservative) data have been selected for estimating potential
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-56
geochemical impacts at the Crown Jewel Project. The bias in the data has been toward data that
would show the greatest impacts.
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Seismic (or earthquake) activity in Central Washington is low. According to the Uniform Building
Code, the Crown Jewel Project area lies in Zone 2B of the Seismic Risk Map of the United States.
This zone can be expected to receive moderate damage corresponding to Intensity VII of the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.
3.5 SOILS
A variety of soils occur within the Crown Jewel Project area. The soil variability stems primarily
from the presence of a broad spectrum of parent materials as influenced by topography, aspect,
elevation, and differential rates of weathering. On-site soil surveys were completed in 1992, 1993,
and 1995 to augment previous soil surveys completed by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service for Okanogan County and for the Okanogan National Forest. Salvage depths of soils
suitable for reclamation range from 0 to 28 inches. The percent of each unit determined to be
salvageable ranges from 0% to 100% with 85% to 95% being most common. Coarse fragment
content of the soils range from 5% to over 60%.
3.6 SURFACE WATER
Five of the drainages that originate near the top of Buckhorn Mountain could potentially be affected
by the proposed Crown Jewel Project. Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek are perennial streams
with intermittent sections in the upper reaches. These streams drain the eastern slope of Buckhorn
Mountain and flow into Toroda Creek. Gold Creek, Bolster Creek, and Ethel Creek are perennial
streams that drain the western flank of Buckhorn Mountain and flow into Myers Creek. Both
Myers Creek and Toroda Creek drain into the Kettle River. The western boundary of the proposed
disturbed area is roughly located along the drainage divide between the east and west flanks of
Buckhorn Mountain. Most of the proposed disturbance would occur on the eastern slope of the
mountain.
A surface water monitoring program is maintained on these five drainages. There are 14 surface
water monitoring stations used to collect stream flow and water quality data.
Field analyses indicate that surface waters at the Crown Jewel Project site are alkaline, with field
pH values ranging from 6.9 to 9.3 and dissolved oxygen (DO) ranging from 1.5 to 13.8 mg/l.
Surface water temperatures vary seasonally, with measurements ranging from -0.7°C (30.7°F) in
Gold Creek during the winter to 16.9°C (62.5°F) in Nicholson Creek during the summer. Field
measurements of ferrous iron in site surface waters were negative. Most surface water has
bicarbonate alkalinity which indicates the natural system has inherent acid buffering capabilities.
One exception is station SW-10, located at the headwaters to Gold Creek.
The highest total dissolved solids (TDS) measured in site surface waters also occurs at station SW-
10, ranging from 290 mg/l to 482 mg/l. By comparison, TDS levels were lower at the other
surface stations (62 mg/l to 324 mg/l), including Station SW-4, located about one mile down
gradient of SW-10 on Gold Creek.
Dissolved trace metal concentrations in site surface waters were generally at or below analytical
detection limits. Both arsenic and strontium were frequently detected in all drainages at levels
above detection limits. Arsenic concentrations ranged from below detection (less than 0.001 mg/l)
to 0.014 mg/l, and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Strontium concentrations ranged from below detection
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page 5-57
(less than 0.01 mg/l) to 0.77 mg/l and averaged 0.3 mg/l. These metals are commonly detected at
trace levels in natural waters as a result of the interaction with sediments and bedrock.
Total and WAD cyanide concentrations were generally below the analytical detection limit of 0.002
mg/l, although, periodically, these parameters were detected at slightly above detection levels.
Total cyanide concentrations ranged from less than 0.002 mg/l to 0.029 mg/l and averaged less
than 0.002 mg/l. WAD cyanide concentrations ranged from less than 0.002 mg/l to 0.02 mg/l and
averaged less than 0.002 mg/l.
TSS concentrations measured in site streams ranged 5 mg/l to 125 mg/l and, on average, were
about 5 mg/l. The common occurrence of elevated TSS values in April corresponds with increased
stream discharges that result from spring snowmelt. A correlation performed between TSS and
flow for each of the surface water monitoring stations indicated an overall weak correlation
between TSS and flow over the period of record.
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS
A spring and seep survey and sampling program was initiated in June 1992, with follow-up
sampling each spring and autumn in the headwaters of Nicholson, Marias, Gold, Bolster, and Ethel
Creeks. A total of 30 springs and 18 seeps have been identified. Flow measurements and water
quality samples have been collected at the sites to characterize the "wet" and "dry" seasons.
Field analyses indicated that the springs are slightly acidic to alkaline, with pH values ranging from
5.6 to 9.8. All field tests for ferrous iron were negative. Spring water temperatures varied
seasonally ranging from 1.6°C (35°F) to 24.6°C (76°F). Seep temperatures were typically higher
than the springs with values ranging from 4.3°C (40°F) to 17.2°C (63°F). The higher seep
temperatures measured may be the result of the stagnant nature of waters sampled at these sites.
Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and bicarbonate are the dominant cation and anion,
respectively, measured in all site springs. TDS values averaged 190 mg/l and ranged from 56 mg/l
(Nicholson Creek drainage) to 350 mg/l (Bolster Creek drainage).
Dissolved trace metal concentrations were generally at or below analytical detection limits.
Arsenic, barium, iron, and strontium were frequently measured at levels above detection limits in
the springs. Arsenic concentrations ranged from below the detection limit (0.001 mg/l) to 0.009
mg/l and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Barium concentrations ranged from below the detection limit (0.01
mg/l) to 0.03 mg/l and averaged less than 0.01 mg/l. Iron concentrations ranged from below the
detection limit (0.02 mg/l) to 0.22 mg/l and averaged less than 0.02 mg/l. Strontium
concentrations ranged from 0.08 mg/l to 1.71 mg/l and averaged 0.3 mg/l. Seasonal trends were
not observed in the metal analyses.
Cyanide concentrations in the springs were typically below the laboratory detection level of 0.002
mg/l. Low levels of total cyanide were detected at six springs at concentrations ranging from
0.003 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l. WAD cyanide was detected at two springs (JJ-1 and JJ-18) with
concentrations of 0.002 mg/l and 0.005 mg/l, respectively.
Laboratory analysis of samples collected at the "frog pond", generally showed similar levels of
trace metals, nutrients, cyanide and radionuclides as the springs. TDS levels were relatively low,
ranging from 42 mg/l to 156 mg/l. This suggests that precipitation and snow melt are a major
component to the water in the frog pond.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-58
3.8 GROUND WATER
Regional ground water in and around the Crown Jewel Project site occurs in bedrock, glacial
deposits, and alluvial sediments. A total of nine monitoring wells have been installed, since the
spring of 1992, to monitor ground water levels and quality. These wells were monitored monthly
for water level and water quality from May and June 1992 until June 1995, when monitoring was
reduced to semi-annually. The site ground water level data show seasonal fluctuations in the
water table range from less than one to two feet to over 200 feet. This range of fluctuation
indicates a relatively high recharge potential and great variability in hydraulic conductivity and
storage.
3.8.1 Project Site Hydrogeology
Bedrock
The Crown Jewel Project site bedrock has low primary (intergranular) permeability and porosity.
Ground water flow is governed by fracture and joint systems. The ground water flow is impacted
by the presence of the North Lookout Fault, (dipping 60° to 70° to the southeast and striking
northeast). A zone of higher permt bility exists along the North Lookout Fault and a zone of low
permeability exists perpendicular to the fault. A shear zone developed along the fault is
approximately 75 feet wide in the southwest corner of the proposed mine and as much as 200 feet
wide near the northeast margin of the proposed mine.
The ground water flow east of the proposed mine area may be impacted by the Toroda Creek
structural zone which dips approximately 45 degrees to the southeast striking northeast. The
shear zone is approximately 500 to 700 feet wide.
Bedrock in the proposed mine area have hydraulic conductivities ranging from 2.6x10"4 ft/day to
0.8 ft/day (9.0x10~8 cm/sec to 2.8x10"* cm/sec). The pumping test results indicate a range of
average hydraulic conductivity from 0.1 ft/day to 0.75 ft/day (3.5x10"B cm/sec to 2.6 xlO"4
cm/sec).
Permeability of the bedrock in the Marias Creek tailings pond area indicated a range of hydraulic
conductivities from less than 2.8X10"4 ft/day to 1.4 ft/day (1x10'7 cm/sec to 5.0x10"4 cm/sec).
The depth of ground water from the surface ranges from an active artesian discharge from
boreholes 90-303 and GB-220 to a depth of 380.7 feet from the ground surface in borehole 90-
218.
The mine site bedrock is recharged by infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. Infiltration from
the local streams is minor at the proposed mine site due to its location on the top of the
watershed. The contribution to infiltration from the streams is more pronounced on the lower
reaches of the local streams. The recharge to the ground water system was estimated to range
from 2.0 to 5.4 inches per year or 14.1 % to 17% of annual precipitation.
Glacial Deposits
In the area of the proposed tailings facility in Marias Creek, two distinctive glacial deposits were
encountered during drilling. An upper deposit consists of loose glacial till, ranging in thickness from
10 to 30 feet. The lower deposit is a dense well graded till with a thickness of more than 119 feet
encountered in monitoring well MW-3.
Packer permeability testing of the loose and dense till horizons indicated values of hydraulic
conductivity from less than 2.8x10'3 ft/day to 2.8 ft/day (1.0x10'e cm/sec to 9.9x10^ cm/sec).
The ground water in the loose till is seasonally present and is perched above the dense till. The
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-59
ground water in the dense till is unconfined; however, artesian conditions (confined) exist locally
where low permeability strata overlies more permeable saturated zones. Seasonal perched
conditions occur in the dense till/bedrock contact zone. Packer permeability tests from this zone
indicated hydraulic conductivity values ranging from less than 1.4x10'3 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day
(5.0x10'7 cm/sec to 7.0x10"4 cm/sec).
Additional geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation for the proposed tailings disposal facility
in the Marias Creek drainage indicated that the tailings disposal site is covered with glacial
lodgement till which acts as an aquitard and perches ground water above the till. The major water
bearing strata is formed by the advance outwash sediments (located below the low permeable till)
and the fractured bedrock. However, an interconnection between shallow water bearing strata in
alluvial/colluvial sediments and the outwash/bedrock water bearing strata is possible due to the
depositional characteristics of the lodgment till.
The glacial deposits are recharged by precipitation, snowmelt, direct infiltration from the local
streams, and inflow of bedrock ground water.
Alluvial Sediments
Alluvial deposits within the Crown Jewel Project site are not a substantial hydrologic unit.
3.8.2 Ground Water Quality
Baseline ground water quality samples have been collected from nine monitoring wells (MW-1
through MW-9) since May and June of 1992. Ground water quality samples have also been
collected from an existing flowing well (GW-1) since October 1990, and from five historic mine
workings.
Bedrock Wells
Three monitoring wells are completed in bedrock. Field analyses indicate that ground waters
sampled are near neutral to moderately alkaline, with phi values ranging from 6.2 to 9.2. Ground
water temperatures in these wells ranged from 4.0°C (39°F) to 7.9°C (46°F). Dissolved Oxygen
(DO) levels ranged from 3.1 mg/l to 12.3 mg/l. These DO measurements may have been affected
somewhat by entrainment of air in the samples during collection.
Laboratory analyses indicated that calcium and bicarbonate were the dominant cation and anion,
respectively. Sodium was the dominant cation measured in MW-1.
TDS levels in the bedrock wells ranged from 92 mg/l to 250 mg/l and averaged 152 mg/l. The
average TDS concentration measured in the glacial wells was 190 mg/l; TDS concentrations in site
surface waters averaged 235 mg/l. The similar TDS levels measured in ground waters and surface
waters at the Crown Jewel Project site suggest a close interrelationship exists between these
hydrologic systems as well as between the bedrock and glacial aquifers.
In general, dissolved trace metal concentrations in the bedrock wells were at or below analytical
detection limits. Three trace metals (arsenic, barium, and strontium) were commonly detected at
levels above detection levels. Dissolved arsenic concentrations ranged from less than 0.001 mg/l
to 0.011 mg/l and averaged 0.004 mg/l. Dissolved barium concentrations ranged from less than
0.01 mg/l to 0.03 mg/l and averaged 0.01 mg/l. Dissolved strontium concentrations ranged from
0.09 to 0.80 mg/l and averaged 0.30 mg/l.
Total and WAD cyanide concentrations in site ground water were typically below the detection
level of 0.002 mg/l. Cyanide was occasionally detected in both the bedrock and glacial deposit
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-60
wells, with total concentrations ranging from <0.002 mg/l to 0.03 mg/l. Cyanide does occur
naturally in the environment and its infrequent detection during baseline monitoring may suggest a
natural source. Measuring cyanide at these relatively low concentrations is difficult and the
potential for "false" positives exists.
Glacial Deposit Wells
In general, water quality data from the bedrock wells and glacial deposit wells were similar.
Ground water in the glacial deposits was near neutral to slightly alkaline with pH values ranging
from 6.0 to 8.3. Ground water temperatures were slightly higher than the bedrock wells, ranging
from 3.1 °C (38°F) to 8.5°C (47°F) and averaging 6.2°C (43°F). DO concentrations ranged from
2.3 mg/l to 13.3 mg/l and may have been somewhat affected, as indicated above, by entrainment
of air in the samples during collection.
Calcium and bicarbonate were the dominant cation and anion, respectively, measured in all ground
water samples from the glacial deposit wells. TDS levels ranged from 76 mg/l to 344 mg/l and
averaged 190 mg/l.
The same trace metals (arsenic, barium, and strontium were typically detected at levels above
detection limits in the glacial deposit and bedrock wells, except for iron and manganese which
were below detection limits in the bedrock wells. The occurrence of iron and manganese in the
glacial deposit wells may be unique to this glacial material.
3.8.3 Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water
The Buckhorn Mountain area of the Myers Creek mining district has been prospected and mined for
gold, silver, copper, and iron for the last 100 years. Water quality samples have been collected
and analyzed from five of the historic mine workings including Buckhorn Adit, Gold Axe Adit,
Lower Magnetic Adit, Upper Magnetic Adit, and Roosevelt Adit.
Discharges ranging from 5.6 gpm (March 3, 1993) to 121 gpm (June 2, 1993), have been
measured from the lower Roosevelt adit. Although the total discharge from the Roosevelt adit is
relatively small, the continuous discharge over a period of at least 80 years (Roosevelt Mine was
first mined between 1902 and 1911) has impacted the natural (pre-mining) ground water system.
The discharge from the Buckhorn adit ranged from 1.9 gpm to 6 gpm. Two of the other
abandoned mine adits, Gold Axe and Magnetic, have small seasonally variable discharge and
standing water at the entrances to the adits.
Samples of water discharged from the Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and Roosevelt adits had similar
quality as samples taken from site monitoring wells. Water ponded in the Upper Magnetic and
Gold Axe adits was found to be chemically distinct from the wells and other adits sampled and
characterized by:
• Generally lower field pH values, 6.3 in the Gold Axe adit and 7.4 in the Upper Magnetic adit;
• Relatively high TDS levels 545 mg/l; and,
• High sulfate concentrations relative to alkalinity.
Water from the Upper Magnetic adit contained low to moderate levels of dissolved iron (less than
0.02 to 0.56 mg/l), manganese (less than 0.01 mg/l to 0.27 mg/l), copper (less than 0.01 mg/l to
0.1 mg/l) and zinc (less than 0.01 mg/l to 0.05 mg/l). Concentrations of others dissolved metals in
this adit were typically at or below detection levels.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-61
The Gold Axe adit had standing water with lower pH values. Water samples from the Gold Axe
adit revealed low to moderate levels of several dissolved trace metals including aluminum (0.10
mg/l to 0.19 mg/l), cadmium (0.006 mg/l), cobalt (0.50 mg/l), copper (0.51 to 1.18 mg/l), iron
(less than 0.02 mg/l to 0.1 mg/l), manganese (0.82 mg/l to 1.06 mg/l), nickel (0.25 mg/l), selenium
(0.002 mg/l), and zinc (0.26 mg/l to 0.49 mg/l). Water quality conditions in this adit vary
seasonally. During spring runoff, seepage of alkaline waters into the adit appears to cause higher
pH values and lower dissolved solids. When the seepage decreases, the pH of the adit waters
declines and TDS rises.
Water collected at the entrance of the Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic adits does not flow freely at
the surface and remains in contact with waste rock and ore material exposed in the adits and
assorted debris from prior mining activities including old underground mine car rails. One or more
of these conditions may affect the water quality conditions observed.
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
Individuals living near the Crown Jewel Project obtain their water through private ground or surface
water sources. Water has historically been used for domestic, irrigation, and stock water
purposes. Water rights in Washington are obtained through and managed by the WADOE. There
are over 200 Washington State issued certificates of water right in the Myers and Toroda
watersheds, including 80 adjudicated certificates. The Washington State adjudication of Myers
Creek water rights (Decree # 7723 Okanogan County) also included Canadian water users along
Myers Creek. In addition to these rights, there are over 350 claims from both watersheds that
have not been adjudicated. Canadian authorities have also issued water licenses on Myers Creek
since the adjudication in 1933.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have interests in water quantity and quality based on two federal
claims. By agreement on May 9, 1891, the Tribe ceded the north half of the Colville Indian
Reservation (established in 1872). In Antoine v.s. Washington. 420 U.S. 194 (1975), the court
ruled that the 1891 agreement had reserved hunting and fishing rights for the Tribe within the
ceded area. The Tribe has an additional interest to the extent that water resources in the subject
area, including Toroda and Myers Creeks, may be necessary to satisfy the Tribe's federally
reserved water rights. The Tribe's federally reserved water rights have not been quantified at this
time.
3.9.1 Ground Water
Ground water at the proposed Crown Jewel Project site is limited because of the physical location
near the top of Buckhorn Mountain and the low permeability of the bedrock. Pump testing of a
well for ground water characterization near the proposed mine indicated that ground water wells
could produce about 20 gallons per minute (Golder, 1993b).
There are a number of productive wells in the Myers Creek basin that utilize ground water for
irrigation. Ground water in Myers Creek is found in alluvial fans, in alluvial deposits of the Myers
Creek floodplain, and in glacial deposits that underlie the alluvial deposits. Pump testing of an
existing irrigation well in the Bolster Creek alluvial fan, near the confluence of Bolster and Myers
Creek, indicated a well yield in the range of 200 to 500 gallons per minute (Golder, 1994b).
Investigations of the glacial fluvial deposits along Myers Creek near the Canadian border indicated
that the ground water potential was limited in this area since the deposits are present as isolated
lenses surrounded by low permeability glacial till (Golder, 1992b).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-62
3.9.2 Surface Water
Myers Creek and Toroda Creek are the two main drainages in the area adjacent to the proposed
Crown Jewel Project site.
Myers Creek
Myers Creek has historically been a water source for irrigation, domestic, and stock water since the
late 1800's. The Myers Creek drainage basin has an area of approximately 89 square miles at its
confluence with the Kettle River in Canada.
An estimate of mean annual flow based on the Myers Creek streamflow data during the irrigation
season and data from similar drainages was calculated by Colder Associates as 7 cfs to 8 cfs, or
5,000 to 5,800 acre-feet/year. Daily streamflow varies annually from 40 cfs, or more, in early
spring to less than 5 cfs in the fall and winter months.
The WADOE has historically regulated junior water rights in Myers Creek. Documentation
requesting regulation have been recorded in 1957, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1977, 1979, 1988, and
1989. Myers Creek has not been administratively closed to further water appropriations by
Washington Administrative Code (WAC), although recent water right applications for agriculture
and irrigation use have been denied by WADOE.
Water licenses (rights) have been issued on Myers Creek in Canada for approximately 530 acre-
feet/year for direct flow rights and 1,170 acre-feet for storage rights for a total of approximately
1,700 acre-feet/year irrigating approximately 740 acres of land.
Toroda Creek
The Toroda Creek drainage basin has an area of approximately 135 square miles. There are no
established monitoring stations on Toroda Creek. The mean annual flow is estimated to range from
13 cfs to 35 cfs.
In 1953, the Department of Game (presently Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WADFW)) began recommending denial of water right applications for uses other than single
domestic and stock water uses. The WADFW believes any further appropriations are serious
threats to stream flows necessary for fish habitat. The WADFW also believes that fish populations
have already been depleted, and all remaining available flow is needed to support a reasonable
population.
This recommendation has not been formalized by adoption of a rule closing the basin to further
appropriations, but water right applications have been denied or partially denied based on the lack
of available water for further appropriations. Numerous landowners have submitted water right
applications and have had their applications returned with letters explaining this closure. However,
WADOE has always informed them of the option of submitting the application for a formal decision
based on the merits of their application. Where formal decisions were made on surface water
applications, all uses except single domestic and stock water uses have been denied. Ground
water in hydraulic continuity with the surface waters of Toroda Creek and its tributaries has also
been considered closed to further appropriations other than single domestic and stock water uses.
3.10 VEGETATION
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the forested area of the Okanogan Highlands physiographic
province. Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and western larch are the most common coniferous species
found in the forest zones. Low shrubs such as twinflower, buffalo-berry, huckleberries, ninebark.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-63
and snowberry are typically the dominant shrub species, with pinegrass dominating the understory
herb layer. Disturbance of vegetation from logging, past mining and exploration activities, and
grazing is visibly apparent. All these forms of past and present disturbance have altered the
region's vegetation to some degree.
Natural openings typically consist of dry shrublands or grassy openings on hillsides, which are
typified by mountain snowberry with pinegrass or mountain big sagebrush with awnless bluebunch
wheatgrass.
Surveys for noxious weeds were undertaken within the vegetation study area during both the
timber resource and range resource evaluations. Bull thistle was the most commonly observed
noxious weed within the vegetation study area. It was observed on disturbed sites such as drill
pads, landings, roadsides, and skid trails. Canada thistle was not as common as bull thistle, but it
also occurred on most sites suitable for bull thistle. Both species were found at a variety of
elevations, and primarily in open, sunny, disturbed sites. Musk thistle, a recent invader in the
region, was found at one site in upper Marias Creek and at two sites southwest of Buckhorn
Mountain in 1992. Hound's tongue was most prevalent on the lower east side of the vegetation
study area.
No federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant species are known to occur in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project; however, three species listed on the Region 6, Regional
Forester's sensitive species list (Listera borealis, Botrychium crenulatum, Platanthera obtusata), do
exist in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project.
Three Forest Service grazing allotments fall within the Crown Jewel Project area. These are the
Cedar, Ethel, and Gold grazing allotments. Studies show that a predominance of the understory
vegetation in the Crown Jewel Project area is pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens). The
allotments, within the Crown Jewel Project area, have many areas which are steep and where
water is limited; these factors reduce the suitability of these areas for livestock use. Limited areas
of overgrazing and trampling damage are evident, but they represent an extremely small portion of
the area to be physically disturbed by the Crown Jewel Project.
3.11 WETLANDS
Field investigations to identify and delineate wetlands in the Crown Jewel Project area were started
in July 1992 and completed in May 1993.
Wetlands totaling 49.26 acres were identified at 32 locations in the Crown Jewel Project and
adjacent areas. Wetland plant community types found during the field investigations include
approximately 26.1 acres of forested broad-leafed deciduous wetlands (quaking aspen and sitka
alder), and forested needle-leafed evergreen wetlands (Engelmann spruce), 16.07 acres of
deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands (red osier dogwood, bebb willow, prickly currant), and 7.09 acres
of persistent emergent wetlands (reed canarygrass, creeping bentgrass, spike rush, small winged
sedge, cattail, burred, bulrush).
Streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands are closely interrelated. Background information on stream
hydrology is presented in Section 3.6, Surface Water. Background information on aquatic
resources is presented in Section 3.12, Aquatic Resources. Background information on springs and
seeps is presented in Section 3.7, Springs and Seeps.
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES
Stream channel and aquatic habitat conditions were assessed and fisheries studies were conducted
in Myers, Gold, Marias, and Nicholson Creeks. This work included electrofishing surveys,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-64
threatened, endangered, and sensitive fish species investigations, benthic macroinvertebrate
surveys, and completion of an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) study on Myers
Creek.
Most of the areas that would be affected by direct disturbance from the action alternatives are
situated in either the Marias or Nicholson Creek drainages; however, the Proponent has proposed to
divert a certain amount of seasonal peak water flow from Myers Creek which would be stored in a
water supply reservoir on Starrem Creek and pumped to the mine site via a water supply pipeline.
The IFIM study results provide a technical basis for evaluating different flow regimes resulting from
the proposed water diversion. The intent was to determine an instream flow to protect fish
resources in Myers Creek downstream of the proposed diversion site.
3.12.1 Habitat Conditions
Myers Creek
Myers Creek is the largest of the streams in the area around Buckhorn Mountain. It flows northerly
through the Chesaw valley along the westerly flank of Buckhorn Mountain and meanders through a
broad U-shaped glaciated valley with moderate to steep side slopes (30% to 60%) and valley floor
widths of approximately 300 to 600 feet. The stream crosses into Canada approximately four
miles north of the community of Chesaw and enters the Kettle River approximately three miles
west of the Canadian community of Midway.
Agriculture is the primary activity along Myers Creek, consisting mainly of hay crops and grazing.
The land adjacent to Myers Creek in the Chesaw valley is private.
Three reaches of Myers Creek were surveyed. Reach 1 and 3 displayed a deeply incised channel
while Reach 2 displayed a moderately incised channel. Myers Creek exhibited moderate sinuosity
along its channel course throughout the Chesaw valley. Substrate embeddedness for all reaches
was estimated to range between 30% to 50%, a fairly high value. Stream cover was less than
20% in Reaches 1 and 3 and between 20% to 30% in Reach 2.
Throughout the length of Myers Creek, beaver activity appeared to be a dominant factor in the
ongoing change of the stream channel. Channel stability is rated as fair. This rating is the result of
extensive channel modification activity by beavers and human land management activities.
An electrofishing survey was conducted to confirm the presence of rainbow trout and brook trout
and to provide data on species composition. Of the total fish surveyed by electrofishing in Myers
Creek, approximately 75% were brook trout and 25% were rainbow trout. The mean lengths of
the fish examined by electrofishing on Myers Creek were 111 mm {4.4 inches) for brook trout and
106 mm (4.2 inches) for rainbow trout. Temperatures in Myers Creek ranged from 0.2°C (32.4°F)
(11/3/94) to 13°C (55.8°F) (8/22/94).
Gold Creek
Gold Creek is a small perennial stream which flows west, about three miles, from its source on the
north flank of Buckhorn Mountain to its confluence with Myers Creek. The Okanogan National
Forest boundary is located about one mile above the confluence with Myers Creek. Approximately
1,781 feet of Gold Creek were surveyed. This portion of the stream flows through a narrow
forested valley and displays deep entrenchment. The channel has a low sinuosity rating.
Substrates were typically dominated by cobble and gravel with sand being subdominate.
Stream canopy shade was 51 % to 75%. Both the aquatic and riparian zones are dominated by a
grassland-forb vegetation. The forested riparian zone provides a regular source of small and large
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-65
woody debris. Undercut banks provide instream cover in limited amounts. Fish were observed in
the stream.
Marias Creek
Marias Creek is a small stream, with intermittent flow in the upper reaches and perennial flow
further downstream. From its source near Buckhorn Mountain, Marias Creek flows easterly for
approximately seven miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek. All but approximately the last
quarter mile of Marias Creek is located in the Okanogan National Forest.
The upstream portions of Marias Creek are confined in narrow valley topography which broadens
as Marias Creek approaches its confluence with Toroda Creek. Gradients in the Marias Creek
drainage average approximately 6% to 7%. Substrates of Marias Creek were typically grave! and
sand with some cobble and small boulders. The Pool:Riffle:Glide ratio (P:R:G) of the lower four
miles was approximately 2%: 97%: 1 %. The upper three miles had a P:R:G ratio of approximately
0%: 94%: 6%. Woody debris was plentiful in Marias Creek and appeared to contribute to instream
cover and floodplain stability, but not to pool creation. Overall fish habitat quality is poor because
of low pool numbers and lack of instream fish cover. Spawning gravel was adequate throughout
Marias Creek and was estimated to be generally less than 35% embedded, with some areas being
highly embedded with sand and silt. Stream temperatures during the 1992 and 1993 surveys
ranged from 45°F to 60°F, which should not limit salmonid survival.
Some of Marias Creek has been impacted by past timber management practices, roads and cattle
grazing. Impacts include trampled banks, overbrowsed riparian vegetation, roadside erosion, and
reduced canopy cover. Most areas would be rated as having a moderate to low level of impact
from cattle grazing.
Both brook trout and rainbow trout were visually observed in Marias Creek. Although rainbow
trout were visually observed near the Marias Creek confluence with Toroda Creek, only three
individual rainbow trout were encountered during the electrofishing survey work on Marias Creek.
Brook trout were the primary species found.
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream. From its source on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain,
Nicholson Creek flows generally easterly for approximately eight miles to its confluence with
Toroda Creek. The lower 2.5 miles of Nicholson Creek (upstream of its confluence with Toroda
Creek) are located on private and state lands; the rest of the stream is located on Okanogan
National Forest lands.
Nicholson Creek flows through a constrained, moderately V-shaped valley with valley floor widths
generally less than 100 feet. The average gradient was moderately steep at 7%. Substrates of
Nicholson Creek are predominantly gravel and sand with some cobble present. The P:R:G was
approximately 3%: 85%: 12%. There are an estimated 2.3 pools per mile with an average residual
depth of approximately 1.7 feet. Cover values are low, ranging from 6% to 20%, with the most
cover being provided by woody debris and undercut banks. Large woody debris on the floodplain
seemed to contribute to system structure and stability. Spawning substrates were adequate and
were estimated to be generally less than 35% embedded with some areas being highly embedded
with sands and silts. Stream temperatures during the 1992 and 1993 surveys ranged from 9°C
(48°F) to 13°C (55°F), which should not limit salmonid survival.
Like Marias Creek, portions of Nicholson Creek have been impacted by past timber management
practices, roads, and cattle grazing. Impacts include trampled banks, overbrowsed riparian
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-66
vegetation, roadside erosion, and reduced canopy cover. Most impacts related to grazing have
been associated with watering areas, particularly wetlands.
Both brook trout and rainbow trout were observed in Nicholson Creek. An electrofishing survey
was conducted to confirm the visual observations, provide data on species composition, and
determine the upstream limit on fisheries. Although there appeared to be suitable fish habitat in
the upper reaches of Nicholson Creek, no fish were found above a natural barrier located
approximately five miles upstream of its confluence with Toroda Creek.
3.12.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species
No threatened or endangered fish species have been documented in Myers, Marias, or Nicholson
Creeks or any of their tributaries. Likewise, no anadromous fisheries species are known to occur in
any of these drainages.
Bull trout and redband trout are considered sensitive species by the Forest Service. Bull trout are
listed as a candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. None of the drainages in the
vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain have bull trout habitat. No bull trout were found during the visual or
electrofishing surveys.
A limited sample of 13 rainbow trout were collected during electrofishing surveys in Nicholson
Creek (10) and Marias Creek (3) and were submitted to the University of Montana's Wild Trout and
Salmon Genetics Laboratory for lactic acid dehydrogenase (LDH) analysis to determine possible
redband trout genetics. No redband trout were identified by this genetic testing. The Crown Jewel
Project area watersheds are located within the historical range of red band trout. It is suspected
that habitat loss and introduction of non-native fish species may be responsible for no red band
trout being documented.
3.12.3 Benthic Macro-Invertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted in the fall of 1994 and again in the spring and
fall of 1995 to provide baseline data on habitat and species abundance and variability in Myers,
Nicholson and Marias Creeks. A total of four stations were sampled. Several physical habitat
variables were measured at each station including air and water temperature, stream gradient,
channel type, percent canopy cover, bank stability assessment, etc. Benthic macroinvertebrates
were collected from representative riffle sites to provide a biological assessment. Riffle, pool,
margin, and coarse participate organic matter (CPOM) were sampled to provide data from all
representative habitat types. The results were compared to values representing community
diversity conditions typically found in unimpacted mid-order western streams.
Data collected to date are an initial step in a longer term process for evaluating trends in the
instream biological condition in the Myers, Nicholson, and Marias Creek watersheds as reflected by
benthic invertebrate meristics.
Myers Creek
Analysis of the physical and biological parameters for stations on Myers Creek indicates that the
benthic invertebrate community has been slightly to moderately impacted by land management
activities, primarily cattle grazing in the riparian areas. Myers Creek may also be impacted by
substrate instability and elevated summer temperatures.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-67
Marias and Nicholson Creeks
Analysis of the physical and biological parameters indicates that the benthic invertebrate
communities may have been slightly to moderately impacted by previous land use activities,
primarily sediment loading from timber harvest and road building. Data collected indicated that
benthic communities were moderately diverse, stable, and generally in healthy condition, although
the communities are by no means pristine.
3.13 WILDLIFE
The Crown Jewel Project would take place in a geographic area with varied topography and
vegetative communities ranging from the grassland/shrub/wetland communities along the lower
elevations of Myers Creek to coniferous forests containing Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, and
lodgepole pine at the upper elevations of Buckhorn Mountain. This landscape diversity provides a
mosaic of habitat conditions supporting a diverse fauna that is representative of the Okanogan
Highlands Region. The fauna range from the common and abundant mule deer and white-tailed
deer to the rare sightings of animals like wolverine and lynx. The wildlife analysis discusses the
availability of habitat for threatened and endangered species including the bald eagle, grizzly bear,
gray wolf, and peregrine falcon.
3.14 NOISE
Three rounds of baseline noise monitoring were performed in the vicinity of the proposed mine.
Noise monitoring was completed at five locations: Chesaw townsite; near the Bolster area; along
Toroda Creek Road near Nicholson Creek Road; the Pine Chee area south of Chesaw; and at the
undeveloped South Corral area near the southern boundary of the Crown Jewel Project. The
measured sound levels at each of the monitoring locations are summarized on Table S-11,
Measured Background Noise Levels.
The wintertime noise levels were considerably quieter than were the summertime levels. For
example, the nighttime average Leq (1 hour equivalent sound level) at Bolster was 36.8 dBA in the
summertime, as compared to 30.6 dBA in the wintertime. Similar results were found at the other
monitoring stations.
3.15 RECREATION
There are no developed recreation facilities operated by the Forest Service or other agencies within
the primary study area. However, a number of undeveloped, dispersed recreation sites have been
observed near the Crown Jewel Project site. These undeveloped, dispersed recreation sites
generally consist of undeveloped hunting camps or fire rings.
Forest Service and BLM lands surrounding the Crown Jewel Project area are subject to hunting,
fishing, hiking, camping, sightseeing, and picnicking. Big game hunting for deer is the major source
of recreation within the Crown Jewel Project area.
The predominant recreation activity in the primary study area is hunting. There are an estimated
448 large game hunters and 1,831 hunter days annually in the primary study area, based on a 4-
year average, and not including Native American hunting. Other recreation activities occur in the
primary study area but on a limited basis due to the lack of developed facilities.
Outside the primary study area there are a variety of developed recreational facilities, including
Forest Service managed campgrounds in the Five Lakes Area which receive heavy use on the
weekends and moderate use during the week, the Sitzmark alpine ski area, and the Highlands
nordic ski area. The local communities of Tonasket, Oroville, Republic, and Curlew maintain a
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
Sr
I
I
Cb
I-
a>
!
o
TABLE S-1 1, MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS
Bolster
Chesaw
Pi nechee
Torod a/Nicholson
South Corral
August 1992 Data
Day
Leq
42-45
(insect noise)
50-60
(insect noise)
ND
49-52
(insect noise)
38
Night
Leq
40-60
45-50
ND
28-33
34
June 1 9-24, 1 993 Data
Average Day
Leq
45.3
48.2
52.6
ND
ND
L-25
41.5
43.9
45.7
ND
ND
L-90
32.9
34.0
31.1
ND
ND
Average Night
Leq
36.8
38.9
38.6
ND
ND
L-25
35.5
34.7
32.0
ND
ND
Note: ND = No Data
"Insect noise" indicates that insects were clearly audible during the monitoring.
L-90
31.7
30.1
26.1
ND
ND
January 10-11, 1994 Data
Average Day
Leq
35.1
49.4
43.7
ND
36.9
L-25
31.6
36.0
34.5
ND
31.1
L-90
29.6
27.2
30.3
ND
28.3
Average Night
Leq
30.6
31.7
33.0
ND
28.8
L-25 | L-90
30.2
23.9
31.1
ND
28.9
29.3
22.5
29.7
ND
28.1
}0
<0
SI
I
I
O)
00
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-69
variety of recreation facilities including parks, tennis courts, and ballfields. Recreation use is
considerably higher in the Okanogan Valley than the rest of the study area, since a large number of
visitors from Canada utilize the area.
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES
Buckhorn Mountain and the surrounding Okanogan Highlands landscape are characterized by
moderately steep topography, ranging from rugged, mountainous terrain to rolling hills. The area's
hills and mountains are characterized by broad, rounded summits. In the higher elevations, the
landscape is forested with coniferous trees, such as Douglas fir, subalpine fir, and western larch.
Occasional clearings are apparent, some of which are natural and some of which are a result of
past or current logging and exploration operations. In the lower elevations, frequent clearings
dominate the landscape, used primarily for agricultural purposes.
The hills and ridges surrounding Buckhorn Mountain obscure the Crown Jewel Project site from
much of the study area. Views of the site that do exist generally extend up river valleys and road
corridors. Based on a detailed map analysis, six corridors, as well as the summit of Mt. Bonaparte,
were found to have intermittent views of Buckhorn Mountain.
The summit of Buckhorn Mountain is not visible from Chesaw or the Bolster area, due to their
proximity to the base of the mountain. The Crown Jewel Project site is also not visible from the
Canadian towns of Midway or Rock Creek. Although the primary mine facilities would not be
visible from any communities, other Project features, such as the transmission line, would be
visible from other areas.
To the west of the Crown Jewel Project, the Oroville - Toroda Creek Road (CR 9480) has several
viewpoints, between Hee Hee Stone and Mary Ann Creek, of the west side of Buckhorn Mountain.
To the southwest, the Myers Creek Valley allows views of Buckhorn Mountain from portions of the
Nealey Road corridor (CR 4861). However, after its intersection with CR 4887, the Myers Creek
valley is screened from most of the Crown Jewel Project site by the intervening hills. The steep
canyon along Beaver Creek prevents views of the Crown Jewel Project site from Beth and Beaver
Lakes.
On the east, the Crown Jewel Project would be visible from several locations along the Toroda
Creek Road, looking up the Nicholson Creek drainage. The Crown Jewel Project site is not visible
from Toroda Creek Road south of Nicholson Creek, due to the steep hills rising immediately above
the valley.
To the north, a portion of the Crown Jewel Project would be visible from British Columbia Highway
3, as it climbs out of the Kettle River Valley, west of Rock Creek. East of Rock Creek, Highway 3
travels along the Kettle River Valley, which is too low in elevation to provide views of Buckhorn
Mountain.
Mt. Bonaparte, located 13 miles to the southwest of the Crown Jewel Project site, also provides
views of portions of the Project area, but the distance involved would make Project features
difficult to distinguish.
Most of the views of Buckhorn Mountain are background views, and all are required to meet the
scenic quality objective of "maximum modification." The most important view, primarily due to the
high traffic volume, is along Canadian Highway 3, followed by the Mt. Bonaparte and Oroville-
Toroda Creek road views.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-70
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES
Heritage resources located within the Crown Jewel Project area include previously recorded sites
with forms on file in the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia, the Forest
Service, and the BLM; places of prehistoric or historic importance described via interpretive signs
and/or local histories; and, sites located and described during the fieldwork for the Crown Jewel
Project. Of the latter, sites were recorded in two geographically separate locales, in the mine
development area on Buckhorn Mountain or in off-mountain locations associated with other mine-
related improvements. Only historic resources, related to mining activities, were recorded on
Buckhorn Mountain, while sites of prehistoric and historic significance were identified within or
adjacent to areas to be affected by construction of power lines, water lines, water reservoir, or
access roads. These include the Hee Hee Stone and a historic irrigation flume which are potentially
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
Although the Crown Jewel Project site is probably located in the traditional territory of the Northern
Okanogan Indians, no evidence of prehistoric activity was recorded. Although no prehistoric
resources are presently known, the potential for their presence cannot be discounted. Should
future mine development result in discovery of prehistoric sites, burials, and/or grave goods, work
in the vicinity would be halted, and representatives of the Colville Confederated Tribes, Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Forest Service, and BLM would be notified.
3.18 TRANSPORTATION
The study area and associated transportation network for the Crown Jewel Project has been
defined to include the major transportation routes, Project access routes, and on-site roads.
The major transportation routes servicing Okanogan County are U.S. Highway 97 (U.S. 97) and
Washington State Route 20 (SR 20).
There are five main Okanogan County roads in the region; CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road); CR 9480
(Oroville - Toroda Creek Road); CR 9467 (Tonasket - Havillah Road); CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge
Road); and, CR 4883 (Bolster Road). These roads are all rural roads used by a wide variety of
vehicles.
The Crown Jewel Project site is accessed via Forest Roads from the north, the south, and the east.
Access from the north is via Forest Road 3575 to Forest Road 3575-100 (Magnetic Mine Road)
and into the Project area. Forest Road 3575-100 provides access through the Project area and
connects back to Forest Road 3575 on the east along Nicholson Creek. The Crown Jewel Project
can also be accessed via Forest Road 3575-150, off of Forest Road 3575.
Access to the Crown Jewel Project area from the south is via Forest Road 3575-120. Forest Road
3575-140 branches off from Forest Road 3575-120 south of the Project area and proceeds toward
the top of Buckhorn Mountain. Forest Road 3575-120 proceeds through the Project area and
intersects with Forest Road 3575-100 and Forest Road 3575-150.
3.19 LAND USE
Land uses within the region are logging, agriculture, residential development, recreation, and
mineral exploration activities.
Logging has been one of the dominant land management uses in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel
Project, with numerous acres having been logged. Over the past 35 years, about 8,000 acres have
been logged in and around the vicinity of the proposed Crown Jewel Project. Logging has occurred
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-71
on both public and private lands in the general area. Both commercial harvests and firewood
cutting occur.
Agricultural land uses are more prominent in Okanogan County than in the immediate proposed
Crown Jewel Project area. The area around the Crown Jewel Project is subject to summer
livestock grazing under permit from the Forest Service.
Residential development in the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project area is concentrated
at Chesaw, with scattered development along Myers Creek, Gold Creek, Nicholson Creek, Bolster
Creek and the Pontiac Ridge south of the Crown Jewel Project area. Two new homes were built in
1992 in Section 35, Township 40 North, Range 30 East in the Ethel Creek drainage. In recent
years, there have been several areas subdivided into 5 acre to 20 acre tracts for residences on
private ground south and west of Buckhorn Mountain. Numerous new homes have been built
south of the Crown Jewel Project area within the past five years.
Forest Service and BLM lands surrounding the Crown Jewel Project area are subject to hunting,
fishing, hiking, camping, sightseeing, and picnicking. Big game hunting for deer is the major source
of recreation within the Crown Jewel Project area.
Since 1988, Crown Resources Corporation and Battle Mountain Gold Company have conducted
exploration activities on claims on or near the summit of Buckhorn Mountain. These activities
involved drilling to delineate the mineralized zone and evaluate ore grades. Exploration activities
have occurred on National Forest lands under plans of operations and subsequent amendments
approved by the Forest Service. Also, exploration on BLM managed lands has occurred under a
notice-of-operations filed with the BLM.
3.20 SOCIOECONOMICS
The geographic area considered for describing the affected socioeconomic environment consists
generally of Okanogan and Ferry Counties. The study area includes the census subdivisions of
Chesaw/Oroville, Conconully/Riverside, Curlew, Okanogan/Omak, Republic, and Tonasket/Pine
Creek.
3.20.1 Population
Information on key population and demographic trends in Okanogan and Ferry counties and, more
specifically, in the primary study area has been compiled from U.S. Censuses for 1970, 1980, and
1990. For the two counties combined, the rate of population growth averaged 2.1 % per year from
1970-80, then 0.8% annually from 1980-90, increasing to 1.8% per year from 1990-1992. From
1992-1995, the population of the two county area has increased even more rapidly, at an average
rate of 2.3% per year. As of 1995, persons age 65 and over constitute 12.8% of the two-county
population. This represents a decline in the 65 + age proportion of the population, but remains
above the statewide proportion of 11.6%. The most rapid growth during the decade of the 1980s
and more recently has been with persons in the age group 35-54. This age group has accounted
for 47% of two county population growth between 1990 and 1995.
3.20.2 Housing
As of 1990, Ferry and Okanogan Counties had a combined total of just under 19,900 housing
units. Overall, a lower proportion of housing units in this two county area are owner occupied
(50%) than is the case statewide (56%). In the Chesaw/Oroville area, less than 40% of all
housing units are owner occupied on a year-round basis. A substantial proportion were identified
by the census as vacant or in seasonal use (41 %).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-72
Between 1990 and 1995, a total of 2,030 new housing units have been added throughout
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. This represents an increase of 10% in the housing inventory for the
two county area.
Approximately 82% of the housing development in Okanogan and Ferry Counties from 1990-1995
has occurred outside of incorporated communities. Omak has experienced the most new
residential development ( + 110 units), accounting for about one-third of the construction in
incorporated cities throughout the two county area.
Mobile homes represent 51 % ( +1,028 units) of the growth in housing inventory since 1990,
followed by single family homes ( + 775 units) and multifamily structures ( + 230 units).
A total of 200 units were identified as being on the market for sale or rent in the two county area
during the period of January-February 1996. These 200 units represent approximately 0.9% of the
total housing inventory in the study area. Of the 200 identified available units, 27 units are in
Ferry County, and 173 are in Okanogan County. A total of 152 residences were for sale, with only
48 rental vacancies (homes and apartments) identified.
The 1995 Housing Needs Assessment & Strategies for Okanoqan County Report indicates that
rents countywide have increased by 60% over a four year period and there are "virtually no rental
vacancies." Housing prices in the north region of Okanogan County are noted to have increased
more rapidly than elsewhere in the County.
3.20.3 Employment
Okanogan and Ferry Counties had a combined employment base of over 20,000 jobs in 1994. The
single largest employment sector is agriculture with close to 5,800 jobs (or 29% of the
employment total). The next largest sectors are government, retail trade, and services - which
together with agriculture account for 80% of the two county employment base. With 310
employees, mining represents 1.5% of the two county employment total.
Washington State Employmbiit Security data for 1994 indicates that a majority of Okanogan
County employment (52%) has been provided by two industries: agriculture (32% of all jobs),
followed by government (20%). In Ferry County, the top three employment sectors account for
66% of total employment: government (at 38%), retail trade (14%), and mining (14%).
The state of Washington Employment Security Department also has compiled information on the
characteristics of unemployment claimants for 1994. The data indicates that of 5,303
unemployment claims filed in Ferry and Okanogan counties, 3,106 (or 59%) were filed by persons
living in the study area. This is similar to the percentage of residents in the two counties who live
in the study area (60%).
3.20.4 Income
A variety of measures and sources can be used to profile characteristics and trends related to
income in Okanogan and Ferry Counties and in the study area.
As of the 1990 Census, median household income for Ferry County residents was $25,170 (81 %
of the state median figure of $31,183). Median income in Okanogan County was $20,303 (65%
of the statewide median).
Both Okanogan County and the Chesaw/Oroville area are at the lower end of median household
incomes reported for rural (i.e. non-metropolitan) counties in the state of Washington. For 24 non-
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-73
metropolitan counties statewide, median household incomes reported for the 1990 census (for
calendar year 1989) ranged from $20,029 to $31,278.
Information regarding sources of income is available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
As of 1993, 61 % of income in the two county area was received from earnings versus 69%
statewide. Investments constitute 14% of income in Okanogan and Ferry Counties compared to
15% statewide, while transfer payments represent 26% and 16% of income for the two county
area and state of Washington respectively. Between 1989 and 1993, transfer payments increased
from 22% to 26% of incomes in the Okanogan and Ferry County area.
As of 1994, 1,896 workers were employed in Ferry County and 18,122 in Okanogan for a total
employment in both counties of 20,018. Total wages paid in both counties was almost $336
million, averaging out at close to $16,800 per employee.
Highest study area wages on a per employee basis are paid in mining (approximately $40,600 per
employee), followed by federal government employment (approximately $36,900 per employee),
state government, and then transportation, communication, and public utilities employment.
Lowest average payrolls are in retail trade (approximately $12,300 per employee) and agriculture
(less than $9,200).
3.20.5 Community and Public Services
Education
Six public school districts provide K-12 education services within the study area. The Okanogan,
Omak, Oroville, and Tonasket districts serve the Okanogan County portion of the study area; and
Curlew and Republic districts serve the Ferry County portion.
Total 1995 enrollment of these six districts was 6,474 students. Combined, the Omak, Okanogan,
Oroville, and Tonasket districts in Okanogan County account for 85% of study area enrollment.
Enrollment was relatively consistent across all grade levels (in a range of 491 to 582 students per
grade) up through grade 9. Grades 10-12 currently have substantially smaller class sizes at 461,
401 and 342 students per class, respectively.
Currently, enrollment across all six districts is at approximately 85% of reported school facility
capacity. The Okanogan district appears to have the fewest constraints (operating at 67% of
capacity) while enrollment in the Oroville and Tonasket districts exceeds 95% of indicated
capacity.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement services are provided for the rural unincorporated portions of the study area by
the Okanogan and Ferry County Sheriff departments. Most of the incorporated cities have their
own police departments. However, the City of Okanogan contracts with the Okanogan County
Sheriff's department for law enforcement services.
The Washington State Patrol has one sergeant and nine officers assigned to Okanogan County.
Officers are responsible for patrolling all Washington state highways in Okanogan County. In
addition, they provide assistance on secondary county roads on an "as needed" basis.
There are a total of five Department of Fish & Wildlife enforcement officers for Okanogan County
(one sergeant and four officers). The four officers are responsible for enforcing all game related
regulations.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-74
Fire Protection
Fire protection for the more populated portions of the study area is provided by five city and eight
rural fire districts in Okanogan County and by the Curlew district together along with the City of
Republic district in Ferry County. The cities generally have cooperative relationships, including joint
staffing with the rural districts providing funding for adjoining rural areas.
Ambulance Services
Ambulance and related emergency transport services are provided in a variety of ways in Okanogan
and Ferry counties. Most of the city fire departments assist with emergency medical services. The
Oroville Emergency Medical Services district provides emergency transport services within the
northern portion of Okanogan County. Ferry County Emergency Medical Services District #1
provides service from the Canadian border south to the Colville Indian Reservation. Tonasket also
provides ambulance service.
Life-Line serves the Omak-Okanogan area with a fully-equipped, licensed ambulance operated on a
24-hour call basis and helicopter and fixed wing plane transport services.
Air flight transport is also provided by Life Bird helicopter service to Deaconess Hospital and fixed
wing plane service to Sacred Heart Hospital. Both hospitals are located in Spokane.
Hospital and Medical Services
Hospitals located within the study area are the Mid Valley Hospital in Omak, North Valley Hospital
in Tonasket, and Ferry County Memorial Hospital in Republic. North Valley also operates a medical
clinic in Oroville. All of the hospitals are partially tax supported, each with its own property tax
base.
Combined, the three study area hospitals have a total of 76 acute care beds available. Hospital
occupancy, as of early 1996, ranged from approximately 25% to less than 45%.
Social Services
As in most urban and rural communities, a variety of social service programs are available in both
Okanogan and Ferry counties. Comprehensive listings of social service providers and activities are
difficult to develop because providers include a mix of state, federal, county, and local agencies;
non-profit organizations ranged from churches to non-profit organizations contracting with
government agencies to private providers such as counselors.
Water Supply
Public water supply systems in the study area are currently provided by a mix of local
municipalities and community systems. Curlew and the more immediate Chesaw and Molson areas
each have community water systems; the remainder of the rural area depends primarily on private
domestic wells. The feasibility of securing water in a rural area for domestic use is related both to
conditions of ground water availability and regulatory requirements.
All of the incorporated communities in the study area have adequate water capacity to serve
additional development, as does the community system for the unincorporated Curlew area.
Conconully is the only incorporated community without a public water system, as individual
property owners use their own wells.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-75
Wastewater Treatment
The only identified sanitary, storm, or related wastewater treatment systems in Okanogan and
Ferry counties are operated by local municipalities. The incorporated community of Riverside and
unincorporated areas do not provide sewer, as residents typically use on site septic systems.
As of 1995, wastewater treatment facilities for Conconully, Okanogan, Tonasket, and Republic are
operating in excess of 85% of total influent (peak month) design capacity, although Republic could
potentially accommodate a doubling of population with utilization of alternate sewage treatment
ponds. Omak and Oroville have capacities which would accommodate residential development.
Violations of regulatory standards are noted for the Tonasket sewage treatment facility by the
WADOE in 1995.
Residences in rural areas typically are on individual septic systems. Some of these are unapproved
septic systems and outhouses, especially in the Okanogan Highlands. These unapproved facilities
have the potential to cause water pollution and health problems now or in the future.
Solid Waste
Okanogan County opened a new landfill one-quarter mile south of the Okanogan City limits on
January 4, 1994. The landfill has a 47 year design life and does not accept hazardous or moderate
risk waste, but does accept asbestos. The landfill diverts wood wastes and yard wastes which are
used or sold for mulch. The county operates three transfer stations located at Ellisforde in north
county, Bridgeport Bar in south county, and Twisp located on the west side of Okanogan County.
Operated in conjunction with the landfill is a recycling center which takes newspaper, cardboard,
office paper, aluminum, and motor oil. The recycling center cannot accept glass, tin, or magazines.
The Ferry County landfill closed October 9, 1993. The transfer station which served the northwest
part of Ferry County (approximately 4,000 residents) currently transfers solid waste to a Stevens
County landfill. Duration of the current arrangement with Stevens County is three years, after
which solid waste will be transported to a regional landfill.
Electrical Utilities
Electric power in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the study area is provided by
public utility districts operating in Okanogan and Ferry counties. Okanogan County also holds an
8% interest in the Wells Dam hydroelectric facility on the Columbia River.
Electric load growth in Okanogan County has been increasing at a rate of over 2% per year with a
combined 7% increase in load growth experienced from 1991-1994. A major share of total
demand is from residential customers, followed by commercial and agricultural users, including
industrial customers (such as mills and fruit packing operations).
In Ferry County, total kilowatt hours (KWH) of load decreased by 4% between 1991 and 1994.
Major Ferry County industrial customers include Vaagen Brothers Lumber and Echo Bay Mining.
The residential customer base is increasing slowly, mostly in the north county/Curlew area.
3.20.6 Fiscal Conditions
Current data and trends regarding expenditures and revenues for local county, city, and other
public agency service providers have been obtained through direct contacts with the pertinent
public and community service providers.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-76
Major revenue sources for most local governments include: taxes, including property, sales and use
taxes (local option for cities and counties); licenses, permits and fees (including user fees as for
water and sewer); federal and state grants and reimbursements (i.e. intergovernmental revenue);
and, other sources (including beginning cash balance, charge for services, fines & forfeits, and
miscellaneous).
Consolidated property tax rates in Okanogan County range from a low of $9.37 to a high of
$15.91 per $1,000 of tax assessed value. Total 1996 levy rate for the Chesaw area is $13.92 per
$1,000 of tax assessed valuation. Tax rates for Ferry County range from a low of $8.64 to a high
of $12.39 per $1,000 tax assessed valuation.
Most properties are assessed every four years at 100% of fair market value, based on comparable
sales. Due to increasing property values and the time lag between assessment cycles, properties
are often assessed at below true market value.
For 1994, Okanogan County had approximately $9.7 million in general fund revenues and Ferry
County had $2.9 million. When revenues from other funds are added, total 1994 revenues
increase to over $43.9 million for Okanogan County and $10.7 million for Ferry County.
Other funds include special revenue, debt service, capital projects, enterprise fund, internal service
fund, and trust & agency fund. In Okanogan County, other funds include a special revenue (50%
of other funds), an enterprise fund (9%), and an internal service fund (41 %). In Ferry County,
other funds consist of special revenue (65%), debt service (1 %), capital project fund (2%),
enterprise fund (7%), and internal service fund (25%).
In Okanogan County, 39% of general fund revenues are from tax sources; another 31 % constitutes
intergovernmental revenues. Together, tax and intergovernmental sources account for 15% of
Okanogan County total revenues (all funds).
Approximately 51 % of Ferry County general fund revenues are from tax sources; 23% of income
represents intergovernmental revenues. Together, tax and intergovernmental sources account for
20% of Ferry County total revenues (all funds).
On the expenditure side, general governmental services account for 43% of Okanogan County and
41 % of Ferry County general fund expenditures. Expenditures for security of persons and property
account for 35% of the Okanogan County and 32% of the Ferry County general fund budget.
Ferry County also expends a greater proportion of its general fund budget for other expenditures
(27%) than does Okanogan County (22%). Other expenses include funding for planning and
capital outlay.
Expenses for Okanogan County have increased rapidly over the last several years, as indicated by a
71 % increase in general fund and 62% increase in total expenditures from 1989-1994. Some of
the greatest growth (in percentage terms) has been in the category of physical environment which
consists of natural resources, engineering, and public utilities (e.g. water, sewer, solid waste).
Ferry County general fund expenditures have increased by 65% from 1989-1994, with total
expenditures increasing by 57%. Expenditures for security of persons and property have increased
by 79% during this time period.
While the City of Omak has the highest total budget (including general fund and other sources),
Tonasket appears to spend the most on a per capita basis. Other cities with relatively high per
capita budgets (above $1,500 per person) are Okanogan, Omak, Oroville, and Republic.
Municipalities with relatively low budgeted resources (on a per capita basis) are Conconully and
Riverside.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-77
3.20.7 Social Values
The Socioeconomic Study Plan has included an assessment of quality of life factors in the study
area. This analysis has occurred in two study phases:
• Phase I: Review of existing research for Okanogan/Ferry counties and the study area (as
covered in this preliminary report)-plus contacts with community /public service providers.
• Phase II: Primary research based on a more in-depth analysis of current values using interviews
with a broad cross-section of community interests within the study area.
Phase I - Review of Existing Research
Current social values of the Okanogan and Ferry counties and of the study area have been
examined in the context of longer term historical social values of the region. Several factors are
particularly important to note in tracing these linkages:
• The history of Caucasian settlements in Okanogan County dates to the earliest days of British
and then American occupation of the Pacific Northwest.
• The Colville Indian Reservation was created in 1872 and initially extended from east of the
Okanogan River, north and west from the Columbia River to the Canadian border.
Subsequently, the reservation was reduced in 1892 to its present configuration, in part, due to
the discovery of gold and other mineral deposits in the northern portions of Ferry and Okanogan
Counties.
• From a reported 1861 date of initial gold discovery, mining has played an important role in the
historical and continuing development of both Okanogan and Ferry Counties; many of the
highlands communities such as Chesaw and Molson were started as mining towns. While
precious metal mining in Okanogan County declined sharply in about the 1920s, commercially
viable precious metal mining activities have continued in Ferry County to the present.
• For longer than most areas of the Pacific Northwest, Okanogan and Ferry counties have been
culturally and ethnically heterogeneous beginning with the original Native American Indian tribes
which experienced early contact with European fur traders and military personnel.
• Chinese laborers were brought into the area to work on railroad, mining, and irrigation dam
projects. More recently, a Hispanic population has migrated to the area for employment in
agricultural and other occupations.
• Residents of Okanogan and Ferry counties have become accustomed to the seasonal and
cyclical ups and downs of a natural resource based economy.
Changes in Economic Development
As traditional natural resource based sources of employment have declined in recent years, more
attention has been placed on economic development and diversification activities in both Okanogan
and Ferry counties.
The original homesteaders, settlers, and their descendants brought and have maintained many of
the strong values that remain a major influence in the culture today. The personal interviews
conducted during Phase II revealed the following values:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-78
• Self reliance, independence, self confidence, respect of neighbors, and recognition of
interdependence;
• Resistance to authority, planning, regulation;
• Strong desire to maintain status quo -- resistant to change;
• Appreciation of natural beauty and wildness;
• An orientation that natural resources are given to use and to be utilized;
• Hard work and honesty;
• Quality of lifestyle which is a higher priority than material wealth;
• Distrust for government and big business; and,
• Children and family which are highly prioritized.
It would appear that those who have remained in this region for a considerable period of time
embrace these values if they did not already arrive with them.
However, major change is taking place in this region due to a number of circumstances. A heavy
influx of population has not only put additional stress on housing and land use, but has introduced
a wider variety of social values. To simply list the categories of recent immigrants there are:
• Educated wilderness migrants;
• Hispanic/migrant workers;
• Retired middle class migrants; and,
• Urban refugees.
This region seems to be attractive to these new "migrants" because of a number of factors
including the area's natural beauty, low land costs, sparse population, minimal land use controls,
and low cost of living. The diverse values of these "new people" sometimes conflict with the more
historic and traditional values of the area.
3.20.8 Land Ownership and Values
Approximately 77% of the land in Okanogan County (as of 1989) and 82% of Ferry County is
owned by the federal government or is part of the Colville Indian Reservation. Reservation lands
are located in the south half of both counties, east of the Okanogan River, and managed by the
Colville Confederated Tribes and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The majority of non-reservation lands are managed primarily by the Forest Service. The BLM also
manages substantial holdings, particularly at the edges of the Okanogan Valley. The State of
Washington also owns a substantial amount of land in the study area, primarily managed by the
WADNR or the WADFW.
Total assessed valuation of property in Okanogan County approximates $1.3 billion as of 1995.
Assessed valuation of the county has increased by almost 141 % since 1980, equating to an
average annual increase in property valuation of 6%.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-79
Total assessed valuation of Ferry County approximates $261 million as of 1995. Assessed
valuation has increased by 223% since 1980, for an average increase of 8% annually in property
valuation. Much of this increase has been attributable to mining activity in Ferry County,
particularly the opening of the Echo Bay operation. However, since 1992, total assessed property
value of Ferry County has declined by 5%, reflecting closure of the Hecla mine.
Residential property values are continuing to increase throughout the study area, particularly in the
Oroville area. As of early 1996, values of building lots ranged from about $6,000 in Chesaw to
$25,000 in Oroville. Rural acreage with or without water, power and road access may range from
less than $1,400 per acre (20+ acres in Chesaw/Highlands area) up to $25,000 per acre
(Oroville).
Rural acreage appears to be least expensive (on a per acre basis) in the highland areas of northeast
Okanogan County (encompassing the Chesaw, Molson, Toroda Creek, Wauconda, Havillah, and
other nearby areas). However, assuring availability of water can be very uncertain unless a well is
already on site, or an existing water right (to a stream) is already in place.
By comparison, building a home or placing a mobile home/modular home on a smaller (one to five
acre lot) has been more common in the Okanogan Valley and the Republic area. High demand has
reportedly depleted much of the supply of buildable small acreage parcels in the Okanogan Valley;
however, some local jurisdictions are planning for future development through annexation of
currently undeveloped property.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact'Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-80
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter provides the analytical basis for comparison of the Crown Jewel Project alternatives
(Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action) with the existing environmentaf resources
(Chapter 3, Affected Environment). Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, examines the
anticipated environmental effects associated with the implementation of the action alternatives in
comparison to the No Action Alternative.
The descriptions in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, include mitigation and
reclamation measures which were developed to limit the occurrence or severity of environmental
impacts. The environmental analyses and results for the action alternatives presented in the
following sections of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, represent mitigated effects, based
on the mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. A
comparison of impacts for the Crown Jewel Project is presented in Table S-12, Summary of
Impacts by Alternative For Each Issue.
4.1 AIR QUALITY
Fugitive dust emissions would occur in all action alternatives during the operating life of the Crown
Jewel Project. The Proponent used emission calculations employing methods published by EPA
and air quality computer models to estimate the ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and
hydrogen cyanide during the peak year of the Crown Jewel Project. As submitted by the
Proponent, the modeled peak-year ambient concentrations at the Proponent's mine claim boundary
are less than Washington Department of Ecology's (WADOE) ambient air quality standards.
WADOE has not yet approved these calculations and has asked the Proponent to make revisions to
the emissions calculations and the air quality modeling. State regulations require a demonstration
that the Crown Jewel Project would not cause an exceedance of an ambient air quality standard in
order for WADOE to approve the Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit. Air quality impacts
from dust and hydrogen cyanide generated directly by proposed mine operations would cease when
mining and milling operations cease.
No long-term air quality impacts would occur from the Crown Jewel Project after mining and
reclamation because the tailings impoundment surface and other disturbed surface areas would be
stabilized and reclaimed to control potential wind erosion. Reclamation activities required by the
Forest Service, WADOE, WADNR, and BLM for the Crown Jewel Project are designed to prevent
wind erosion off the tailings and disturbed areas.
Fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions from the Crown Jewel Project could cause visibility impacts at
the Pasayten Wilderness Area, if a combination of worst-case conditions are assumed to occur.
Observers looking either east or west along the plume centerline might be affected by substantial
reductions in the standard visual range (SVR) compared to pristine background conditions.
However, this assessment is based on a combination of worst-case assumptions. If it is assumed
that north-south valley winds along the Okanogan River valley would disrupt the westward
transport of mine-related emissions, if it is assumed that relatively little of the tailpipe emissions
oxidize in the atmosphere, or if it is assumed that the prevailing wind directions likely consist of
westerly upper-air winds along the jet stream, then the calculated mine-related visibility impacts
would be lower than the accepted no-impact thresholds.
It appears that the existing baseline nitrogen deposition rate at the Pasayten Wilderness is already
near the level that could cause impacts to plants. If a combination of worst-case meteorological
and chemical assumptions are used (upper level winds transporting the mine emissions westward
and 100% conversion of NO emissions to nitrate), then the mine-related nitrogen deposition would
add substantially to the existing baseline loading, and the resulting total nitrogen deposition would
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
(6
5-
|
i
I
o
•s.
CO
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
AIR QUALITY
Tons of TSP produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of PM,0 produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of HCN produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of NOX produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Changes in visibility screening parameters
None From
Project
None From
Project
None
None
None From
Project
Minor
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Substantial
under worst
case conditions
C
D
£
F
Q
109
478
55
218
0.203
0.61
150
763
< B
247
1,364
117
612
0.203
0.91
190
1,483
< B
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Similar to B
212
5,428
99
2,469
0.174
2.08
185
5,665
Similar to B
ENERGY
Gallons of petroleum products Annual
Total
kWh of electricity used Annual
Total
< 1,000 gal
< 1,000 gal
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1,200,000 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
700,000 gal
2.800,000 gal
63 million
252 million
1,000,000 gal
5,800,000 gal
63 million
378 million
1.200,000 gal
9.600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
FISH HABITAT AND POPULATIONS
Predicted changes in spawning habitat
Predicted changes in stream temperature
None
None
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
600,000 gal
1 9,000,000 gal
42 million
672 million
Minor Decrease
Negligible
GEOCHEMISTRY (Key Issue)
Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock
disposal areas
Potential for release of radioactive materials
(alpha and beta emissions)
Potential for metals transport
Potential for release of tailings materials or
interstitial liquids into ground/surface waters
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
Low- Moderate
(25-29%)
Low
Low
Low
Low-Moderate
(16%)
Low
Low
Low
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
442
2,919
206
1,329
0
0
370
3,558
Similar to B
2,400,000
gal
1 9,000,000 gal
63 million
504 million
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL (Key Issue)
Safety Factors(static) Waste Rock Slopes
Tailings Embankment
Pit Walls(operations)
Acres of potential ground subsidence through
underground mining
Potential for rock slides or unstable pit wall
conditions
after mining
Not Applicable
None
Not Applicable
>1.3
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
2.7
2.7
No Pit
27
No Pit
2.7
2.7
1.2
3
Moderate
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
No pit walls left
exposed
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
I
(0
to
VI
i
!
-------
I
(6
I-
9
I
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
HEALTH/SAFETY
Likelihood of a chemical spill
Predicted number of industrial accidents
Alternative
A
B
C
Negligible
Negligible
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
Low, Less than
C, D, F, G
Greater than G
Less than
B, D, E, F
Greater than
B, D, E, F, G
D
E
F
Q
Greater than
C&F
Less than
B, E, G
Greater than
B, E, f. G
Less than C
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
Low, Less than
C, D, F, G
Greater than
B, C, D, E. G
Low, Greater
than
B, E, G
Less than C & D
Less than
B, C, D, E, F
Low,
Greater than
B&E
Less than
C, D, E
HERITAGE RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES
No. of known historic sites impacted
Acres not available to Native Americans
None
None
6
- 2,000
6
- 1,500
LAND USE
Acres Disturbed (total)
Acres disturbed by ownership Forest Service
(acres/%) BLM
State of Washington
Private
Number of acres of public lands possible to put
under patent application
NOISE
Summertime noise levels (Leq) Chesaw
(Prevailing Condition, nighttime.
west wind) Bolster
Wintertime noise levels (Leq) Chesaw
(prevailing Condition, nighttime,
east wind) Bolster
Noise levels of blasting (L-02)
(winter east wind) Bolster
Chesaw
Pine Chee
Noise effects on wildlife
Noise effects to worker health and safety
RECREATION
Changes in recreational access
>58
54.6
3.3
0
No Record
Not Applicable
787
469/59
189/24
13/2
116/15
925
415
266/64
70/17
20/5
59/14
<925
6
- 2,000
7
- 2,000
7
- 2,000
7
- 2,000
558
292/52
147/26
20/4
99/18
<925
928
575/62
195/21
47/5
111/12
>925
817
527/64
153/19
38/5
99/12
>925
893
544/61
197/22
44/5
108/12
>925
39 (background)
37 (background)
32 (background)
31 (background)
54 (background)
57 (background)
62 (background)
Negligible
None
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
None
None
Yes
= 8,000 acres
39
37
43
Not Modeled
54
57
62
Less than
B, E, F & G
None
Yes
=> 7,500 acres
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Less than
B, E, F, G
None
Yes
=> 8,000 acres
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
None
Yes
a 8,000 acres
39
37
32
31
59
59
62
High due to
duration of
impacts (33
years)
None
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Less than
B, E, F
None
Yes
= 8,000 acres
Yes
=• 8,000 acres
-------
1
5.
!
o>
§
sr
I
n
*•+
CO
3
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Traffic past Beth and Beaver Lakes
(during operations phase)
Increase in daily traffic
Types of Traffic
Noise level increase to Graphite Mountain
Facilities visible from Graphite Mountain
Alternative
A
None
None
No
B
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
C
None
None
Yes
D
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
E
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
F
11
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
Q
None
None
Yes
RECLAMATION (Key Issue)
Percentage of final reclaimed waste rock slopes
that are:
Steeper than 2H: 1 V
Between 2H:1V and 3H:1V
3H: 1V or flatter
Acres/percentage of south facing waste rock
slopes needing reclamation (reclaimed mainly to
grass)
Acres of disturbance needing reclamation
Acres/percentage of slopes which can be
successfully reclaimed with > 1 00, well
scattered, live and healthy trees per acre
Acres/percentage of slopes which will only be
reclaimed with grasses and shrubs, and
scattered trees «100 per acre)
Acres/percentage blasted, flooded or filled in pit
Not applicable,
areas to be
reclaimed are
roads.
None
55
55 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10%
43%
47%
1 8 ac (3%)
787
502 (64%)
1 88 (24%)
97 (12%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
0 ac (0%)
415
349 (84%)
55 (13%)
11 (3%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
9 ac (2%)
558
386 (69%)
1 1 2 (20%)
60 (1 1 %)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
9ac(1%)
928
631 (68%)
220 (24%)
77 (8%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
0 ac (0%)
817
596 (73%)
221 (27%)
0(0%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
16ac(2%)
893
615 (69%)
181 (20%)
97(11%)
SCENIC RESOURCES
No. of high-powered lights visible at night from:
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
B.C. Highway 3
Visual Quality Objectives met by Project
Short-term
Long-tenn
0
0
Yes
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis.
No
(Waste areas)
Yes
0
0
Yes
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible ton
continual basis.
Yes
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible
on continual
basis.
No
(Waste Areas)
Yes
0
0
No
(Waste Area)
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis.
No
(Waste Area)
Yes
SOCIOECONOMICS (Key Issue)
Project annual employment during operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Project multi-year employment (in person-years)
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
<5
<5
<5
<5
144
254
1,350
2.310
225
395
1,100
1,860
225
395
1,550
2,650
144
254
1,350
2,310
125
225
3,430
6,030
210
370
1,880
3,240
s
••*
5°
(o
si
CO
CO
00
-------
I
I
t
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Projected annual employment payroll during
operations
Project related (direct) (xOOO)
Total (direct plus indirect) (xOOO)
Projected multi-year employment payroll
Project related (direct) (xOOO)
Total (direct plus indirect) (xOOO)
Anticipated peak population increase during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated peak new school enrollment during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated permanent new housing during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated multi-year tax revenues after
expenditures
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Alternative
A
Not Projected
Not Projected
Not Projected
Not Projected
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Projected
B
* 5,871
$ 7,456
$56,434
$70,367
81
157
21
40
29
56
$20.1 mm
$31.4 mm
C
$ 9,042
$11,483
$45,623
$56,637
379
497
100
131
135
177
$14.3 mm
$23.3 mm
D
$ 9,042
$11,483
$63,707
$79,603
315
433
83
114
112
154
$19.4 mm
$31.1 mm
E
$ 5,871
$ 7,456
$56,434
$70,367
81
157
21
40
29
56
$19.2 mm
$30.1 mm
F
$ 5,210
$ 6,617
$144,162
$181,792
70
140
19
38
25
50
$41.0 mm
$64.1 mm
SOILS (Key Issue)
Acres of topsoil removal
Percent of soil available for reclamation at 1 2"
and 18" depths
Changes in soil productivity predicted
55
Not Applicable
Yes
665
105%
Yes
388
94%
Yes
460
113%
Yes
812
108%
Yes
775
112%
Yes
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER (Key Issue)
Number of springs/seeps affected
direct
indirect
Lineal feet of existing stream channels
impacted
Gold Bowl Drainage
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Starrem Creek
Total
1
0
None
None
None
None
0
8
11
2,300
4,200
2,025
2,200
10,725
4
14
1,350
3,550
None
2,200
7,100
8
11
1,550
4,200
550
2,200
8,450
8
12
1,500
4,200
3,900
2,200
11,800
6
11
1,500
None
8,525
2,200
12,225
Q
$ 8,168
$10,373
$74,715
$93,582
118
230
31
60
42
82
$21.0 mm
$33.9 mm
741
121%
Yes
7
10
1,500
None
8,300
2,200
12,000
tO
<0
I
20
!
-------
I
I
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Decreases in area stream flows at average
annual precipitation of 20 inches (during
operations)
Nicholson Creek (confluence with
Toroda Creek)
Marias Creek (confluence with Toroda Creek)
Bolster Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Gold Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Changes to ground and surface water chemistry
Increase in stream sediment loads
Estimated water use
(acre feet) Annual
Life-of-mine
Alternative
A
None
None
None
None
Negligible
Negligible
None
B
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
674
8,728-8,760
(including pit
lake
augmentation of
2,768 acre-feet)
C
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
590-647
2,502-2,647
D
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
623-663
3,860-4,134
E
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
655-687
5,363-5,654
F
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
306-508
7,049-10,807
Q
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
1,032-1,879
8,420-15,227
TRANSPORTATION
Additional number of vehicles per day
Construction (93% of Employees Car Pool)
Operations (75% of Employees Bused)
Reclamation (75% of Employees Bused)
Percent increase in traffic during operations
phase
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road (County Road
9480)
Pontiac Ridge Road (County Road 4895)
Number of accidents involving hazardous
chemical supply vehicles
0
0
12
4%
240%
Negligible
305
108
41
20-31 %
2160%
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
(8, 128 truck
loads)
305
151
41
58%
3020%
Greater than G
Less than
B, D, E, F
(4,544 truck
loads)
305
154
41
20-53%
3080%
Greater than
C&F
Less than
B, E, G
(6, 126 truck
loads)
305
108
41
20-35%
2160%
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
(8,128 truck
loads)
305
89
53
12-30%
1780%
Greater than
B, C, D, E, G
(9,952 truck
loads)
305
160
41
62%
3200%
Less than
B, C. D, E, F
(3,528 truck
toads)
USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS (Key Issue)
Estimated Annual/total use of:
Sodium cyanide (ton)
Cement/lime (ton)
Lead nitrate (ton)
Sodium nitrate (ton)
Ammonium nitrate (ton)
Hydrochloric acid (ton)
Caustic (ton)
Copper sulfate (ton)
Diesel fuel (gal) (Annual/Total)
Transport of key toxic substances
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1.000/1,000
No
1,710/13,680
6,000/64,000
1 70/ 1 ,360
31 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1 ,660
53/ 424
1.2 mm/9.6 mm
Yes
1.710/ 6,840
8,000/32,000
1 70/ 680
3/ 12
1,100/4,400
220/ 880
207/ 830
53/ 210
.7mm/2.8mm
Yes
1,710/10,260
8,000/48,000
1 70/ 1 ,020
3/ 18
3,200/19,200
220/ 1.320
207/ 1,240
53/ 320
1 mm/5. 8mm
Yes
1,710/13,680
8,000/64,000
1 70/ 1 ,360
31 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1 ,660
53/ 424
1.2mm/9.6mm
Yes
855/1 3,680
4,000/64,000
85/ 1,360
1.5/ 24
1,600/25,600
110/ 1,760
103/ 1.66O
26/ 424
.6mm/19mm
Yes
None
None
None
None
3,200/25,600
None
None
None
2.4mm/19mm
Yes
VEGETATION (Key Issue)
Number of T&E plants lost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-86
UJ
3
(O
(A
O
tc
O
u.
UJ
K
CC
UJ
b
CQ
V)
o
CL
i
U.
O
a.
5
5
(0
CM"
CO
UJ
GQ
1
i
O
II
UJ
O
u
CD
4
x
E/CONCERI
(0
<2
00
5
00
CO
(0
5
CO
CD
in
O)
00
2
JX
R
s
o
I
^
c
15
'c
0
JtB
i§
» Estimated
of grazing
£
|
Z
S
in
i
6
CO
CO
5
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
6
«
wtlands Ic
f
"o
w
1
CO
«
J
CM
CO
o
•o
s
u
1
indirectly i
wetlands
irobable)
|| Number of
II (possible p
Crown Jewel Mine • /vna/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-87
UJ
CO
X
o
rf
LU
tc.
o
u.
RNATIVE
CD
CO
13
s
LL.
O
MMARY
CO
t—
UJ
CO
r-
"LU
K
z
DC
LU
f—
O
z
CO
LU
o
CO
LU
LU
0
i
o
LU
O
LU
CO
to
ly
^
LU
DC
O
LU
X
X
t
HABITAT
I IMPACTS TO
i
1
1 Alt e ma
i
Alterna
a
I
1
1
1
Alterna
nditions
I
Ul
= s~
• eg
s « 6
1 Acres
Impacted
s S~
g = 5
*5 +
Acres
Impacted
= Ol"
g = S
£5i
Acres
Impacted
I""
UI
1 Acres
Impacted
Si:
eto-
Acres
Impacted
C o~
« c s
il+
Acres
Impacted
llj
£*- <
0
Acres
(unless
specified)
Wildlife Species and Habitat
CO
ID
5
T"
CO
CO
CO
i
o
~
O)
10
CO
S
£
|
j=
*
10
5
CO
10
ID
CO
*
i
o
ID
0
"**
8
0)
1-
~
s
10
CO
1
I
*
10
f
CO
ID
ID
CO
*
1
O
1
0
""•"
s
0)
1-
"
*
10
0)
10363
I
£
1
I
=
c
3
e
CO
i
*
CM
s
8
10
S
10
*^
0)
CO
CM
o
s
*
I
1
c
i
i
r-
•4-
s
W
P5
'
CO
*
CM
N
CM
CM
CM
CO
«-
CO
CO
» habitat with coarse woody debris
1
*
I
CO
1
CO
I
Ol
s
F:
5
o
~
s
10
8
10
1
1
1
10
3
N
*
CM
10
1
10
O
"-"
ID
ID
00
CO
~
S
s
10
I
1
1
i
u
z
N
1
CM
i
CO
1
o
1
en
§
N
~
cn
O)
00
0)
ID
i
i
1
u
1
o
|
CM
$
CM-
CO
S
CO
CO
CM
O
o
I
cn
CO
cn
ID
N
~
H
s
10
r>
1 Ruffed Grouse suitable
1
S
s
s
0)
ID
10
CO
S
^
§
w
™~
i
r-
"
ID
CM
ID
g
Blue Grouse winter
r-
0)
F:
A
*
Ol
r*
O
p
en
r>
o
«-
10
CO
summer & breeding
1
*•
CO
8
0
1
CM
0)
10
N
0)
CM
0)
*
CM
0
~
s
CM
N
S
CO
CM
f
I
U
c
CM
$
CO
0)
10
CO
CM
CM
ID
8
03
"™"
CM
CO
"
CM
CM
-
f
|
i
1
CM
3
n
0)
10
CO
CM
N
10
S
00
~~
N
CM
~
CM
CM
-
i
|
i
o
f
I
CM
1
P
CM
3
N
CO
10
00
00
CO
00
CM
co
0)
1
10
CO
10
CO
f
1
*
10
CO
ID
s
*
i
o
1
o
"~~
9)
r-
~
*
r»
10
cn
CO
10
co
o
Grizzly Bear potential
*
10
CO
ID
3
*
i
o
ID
0
*~*
O)
T-
"
*
10
cn
CO
10
CO
o
Gray Wolf potential
Crown Jewel Mine • f/ha/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
s-
3
I
o
•*
to
TABLE S-12, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE3
Wildlife Specie* and Habitat
Pacific Fbher potential
preferred
avoided
CaNfomla Wolverine editable
North American Lynx travel2
foraging2
denning2
non-cover2
Towneend'* Big-Eared Bat foraging
potential roo«t treee
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential pott-fledging/family area
foraging
Exletbig Condition*
Acre*
(unlec*
•peclfled)
5065
1388
794
4479
36O7
254
13
2873
6654
3538
614
2491
6066
Percent
of Core
Area
46
13
7
41
33
2
<1
26
61
NA
6
23
46
Alternative B
Acre*
Impacted
778
320
570
660
489
35
4
448
789
493
143
436
778
Percent
Change
(+ 01 -)
116)
(23)
(72)
(15)
(14)
(14)
(30)
(16)
(12)
(14)
(23)
(17)
(16)
Alternative C
Acre*
Impacted
565
216
418
501
322
17
3
306
602
351
146
271
565
Percent
Change
(+ ot -I
(11)
(16)
(63)
(11)
(9)
(7)
(23)
(11)
(9)
(10)
(24)
(11)
(11)
Alternative D
Acre*
Impacted
591
203
794
524
386
30
3
272
656
359
139
310
591
Percent
Change
(+ or -)
(12)
(16)
(100)
(12)
(11)
(12)
(23)
(13)
(10)
(10)
(23)
(12)
(12)
Alternative E
Acre*
Impacted
794
278
663
708
533
40
3
518
889
549
146
476
833
Percent
Change
(+ or -I
(16)
(20)
(84)
(16)
(16)
(16)
(23)
(18)
(13)
(16)
(24)
(19)
(16)
Alternative F
Acre*
Impacted
728
162
722
639
515
48
3
526
826
363
102
420
728
Percent
Change
(+ or -)
(14)
(12)
(91)
(14)
(14)
(19)
(23)
(18)
(12)
(10)
(17)
(17)
(14)
Alternative Q
Acre*
Impacted
721
145
734
626
547
55
3
558
821
424
79
429
722
Percent
Change
(+ or -I
(14)
(10)
(92)
(14)
(15)
(22)
(23)
(20)
(12)
112)
(13)
(17)
(14)
Note*: 1 . Based on TWHIP data.
2. Based on habitat above 4,000 feet in the core area.
3. Percentages rounded to nearest 1 % core area = 10,925. Percent loss of area indicated by ().
<0
-------
I
I
5%
925 acres
>5%
no threshold
£5%
203 acres
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/miz
2.0 mi/mi2
3.0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
Values' || Status1 2
Existing
Condition
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1 %/54
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
37.3
2.7
4.3
3.2
Alternative
A
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
3.0
2.5
4.3
3.2
B
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
13%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
3%
1%
3%
125
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.3
4.3
3.2
C
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
O.O
2.4
4.3
3.2
D
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.3
4.3
3.2
E
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
18%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
2%
1%
2%
99
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2,2
4.3
3.2
F
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
14%
9%
11%
34%
26%
11%
0
11%
1,767
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
25
4.1
1.9
2.2
4.3
3.2
G
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
15%
9%
11%
34%
25%
12%
0
12%
1,802
4%
1%
4%
149
'2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.2
4.3
3.2
Existing
Condition
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C +
A +
NC
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B+
A*
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-e
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B+
A+
NC
NC
D
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A+
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A+
NC
NC
E
C+
C-
NC
A-
NC
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
O
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
F
C+
C-
NC
A-
A-
NC
NC
A-
A-
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
B+
A +
NC
NC
Q
C +
C-
NC
A-
A-
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A+
NC
NC
Notes: 1. Shaded cells indicate a change from existing conditions. Bolding indicates the element would be reduced from existing conditions.
2. A- indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines, would be reduced, but would still meet standards and guidelines; B- indicates that the element
currently meets standards and guidelines but would be reduced below standards and guidelines (i.e., goes below the threshold); C- indicates the element is currently
below minimum standards and guidelines and would be reduced further; A+ indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines and value would
increase; B+ indicates the element is below standards and guidelines, value would increase and would meet standards and guidelines; C+ indicates the element is
currently below standards and guidelines, would increases in value but not meet standards and guidelines (i.e., value would increase but status would not); NC indicates
no change from existing conditions; NA indicates habitat cannot be assessed relative to a threshold (bolding indicates the element would be reduced). B- and C- represent
noncompliance.
JO
<0
SJ
Co
i
30
Co
po
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-90
be higher than the published threshold values. However, this assessment is based on a
combination of worst-case assumptions. It assumed that north-south valley winds along the
Okanogan River valley would disrupt the westward transport of mine-related emissions, or if it is
assumed that relatively little of the tailpipe emissions oxidize in the atmosphere, then the calculated
mine-related deposition would be much lower than the published no-impact thresholds.
None of the alternatives would emit enough particulates or water vapor to cause cloud formation,
fogging or icing, which might otherwise contribute to local weather impacts. The emissions of
"greenhouse gases" from the mining operations would be low compared to similar emissions from
non-Project activities elsewhere in the region.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
The construction and operation of the Crown Jewel Project would introduce a noticeable
topographic change in the immediate area of Buckhorn Mountain. Development of a
comprehensive reclamation plan, that involves regrading and recontouring, and strict adherence to
this plan would lessen the topographic intrusion on the site. The degree of topographic impact
would be a function of the acreage disturbed, the type of mining, the final configuration of the
open pit, location of the waste rock disposal piles and tailings facility, and the extent of subsidence
that develops over underground mine workings. Although the topographic changes are long-term,
the regrading and recontouring aspects of the reclamation efforts would be conducted in such a
manner that the waste rock and tailings areas would be, to the extent possible, blended into the
adjacent undisturbed terrain.
For Alternatives B, D, E, and G, reclamation blasting would be conducted to create cliffs and talus
slopes in an effort to eliminate and minimize the artificial topographic appearance created by the
rectilinear activities of open pit mining. Alternative F would require that all waste rock be returned
to the pit. Since loose material would "swell" as much as 35% when removed from the pit area, it
would take more room to replace it in the pit. This would result in a slightly higher summit on
Buckhorn Mountain and gentler slopes within the Gold Bowl drainage than currently exist.
Alternative C could have up to 27 acres of potential subsidence, while Alternative D could have up
to three acres of potential subsidence. The subsidence areas would probably have unstable edges
and steep talus slopes.
Waste rock disposal piles would be configured such to eliminate rectilinear features as much as
possible while the slopes would vary from angle of repose to 3H:1 V. In Alternative B, the north
and south disposal piles would have overall average 2.5H:1 V slopes; however, waste rock disposal
areas would be graded to mostly a slope of 3H: 1V or flatter on public lands administered by the
BLM. Waste rock disposal areas, in all the other alternatives, would have overall average 3H:1 V
slopes. In all action alternatives, the slopes would be varied to comply with the Washington State
Surface Mining Law RCW 78.45, Chapter 78.45 RCW administered by the WADNR.
All action alternatives would have a tailings facility. In Alternatives B, C, D, and E the facility
would be located in the Marias drainage and be 84 to 101 acres in size. Alternative F and G
tailings facilities would be located in Nicholson drainage and be 1 57 or 137 acres, respectively.
These areas would appear somewhat unnatural due to the large flat areas that would be created
and the uniform, high steep embankment faces. However, proposed revegetation efforts would
help these areas blend into the natural surroundings.
4.3 GEOLOGY
In all action alternatives, geologic material (ore and waste rock) would be removed, altered, and/or
re-arranged. The gold values would be gone, and the existing geological structure and lithologic
continuity in the area of the ore deposit would be altered.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-91
Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove and/or relocate about 61 million cubic yards of material,
Alternative D would remove about 24 million cubic yards, while Alternative C would remove about
4.6 million cubic yards of material. The relocation of this material would affect the surface
topography of the area.
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Geologic events, such as earthquakes, could result in damage or destruction of any or all
components comprising the action alternatives. In addition, the release of chemicals into the
environment could result from the occurrence of a major geologic event. The damage, destruction,
or chemical contamination would vary depending on the severity of the event and could lead to
direct and indirect impacts. Although it is possible for an earthquake to occur in the region
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project, the potential for damage to a facility and release of
chemicals or tailings material would be minimized through engineering design and proper
construction.
No active faults are known to exist in the Crown Jewel Project area. There is a low potential for
damaging seismic activity.
All buildings on the Crown Jewel Project site would be designed and constructed according to the
latest Okanogan County and Uniform Building Code standards.
The tailings facility embankments and the Starrem Reservoir embankment would be designed and
constructed to withstand a Maximum Creditable Earthquake (MCE) for the area (magnitude 6.0 on
the Richter scale) with a estimated peak bedrock acceleration at the site of 0.19 g (gravity).
Possible catastrophic consequences could be associated with a tailings facility or dam failure from
an earthquake event greater than the MCE. If an earthquake of this intensity occurred in this area,
with or without the development of the Crown Jewel Project, it could result in severe property
destruction, loss of electric and other utility services, and possible loss of life in this region of
Washington and Canada.
The waste rock disposal areas would be designed to meet or exceed factors of safety on the order
of 1.2 static and 1.1 dynamic (pseudo-static). A static factor of safety measures the safety of the
facility under normal conditions. The dynamic factor of safety, sometimes expressed as pseudo-
static, shows the ability to resist failure from earthquake loading.
4.5 SOILS
A number of effects to soils would occur as a result of implementing any of the action alternatives.
These effects range from changes in chemical and physical characteristics due to soil blending
during salvage operations to a reduction in soil microbial populations resulting from stockpiling.
Many of these direct effects would be mitigated through proposed reclamation techniques. The
quality of the soil proposed to be salvaged is suitable for the reclamation planned. The 12 and 18
inch resoiling depths proposed for reclamation would be sufficient to support the proposed post
mining vegetation communities assuming care is taken during soil reapplication.
Given proposed soil handling plans, sufficient soil exists on-site to reclaim the disturbed areas of all
action alternatives with 12 inches of soil in the flatter areas and 18 inches on the steeper areas,
except Alternative C, which has an estimated soil shortage of 23,400 cubic yards. The lack of
substantial buffer volumes of soils salvaged would require proper care be taken during salvage and
reapplication activities such that revegetation objectives can be met. Test olots, to be constructed
in support of reclamation operations, would be appropriate and beneficial for identifying optimal
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-92
resoiling depths and plant types, as well as other necessary refinements prior to implementing the
proposed reclamation plans.
Water erosion rates were calculated, for existing site conditions and selected components of all
action alternatives, at the end of one and five growing seasons following reclamation. Estimated
erosion rates for existing conditions ranged from 0.051 tons/acre/year to 0.227 tons/acre/year.
Erosion rates estimated for selected components of Alternatives B through G ranged from 0.003
tons/acre/year to 0.889 tons/acre/year over one to five growing seasons. The annual soil loss
tolerance level for reclaimed areas at the Crown Jewel Project site is 1.00 ton/acre/year given the
depths of soil reapplication proposed as well as substrate characteristics (SCS, 1983). "Tolerance"
in this case indicates that, at a potential erosion rate of 1.00 ton/acre/year, there should be no
detrimental effect on soil productivity. All values calculated using conservative Revised Universal
Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) values for reclaimed Project components were below this figure, under
all action alternatives. These calculated erosion/soil loss rates would not result in direct increases
in sedimentation of the Crown Jewel Project area streams. This eroded soil would simply redeposit
down slope prior to reaching the sediment detention structures or would settle out in the sediment
detention structures, which would be located down slope of all disturbed areas.
The potential for wind erosion at the proposed Crown Jewel Project area is low, given site
characteristics including a rolling topography (short "field length") and a surrounding dense forest
canopy.
4.6 GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND SEEPS
During the mining operation, ground water within the mine recharge catchment area would flow
toward the mine workings. The water level in bedrock water bearing fractures would be lowered
within the zone of influence due to mine dewatering. The approximate maximum extent of the
100, 10, and 1 foot drawdown at the end of open pit mining, as predicted by the finite-element
ground water flow model, is presented on Figure S-9, Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering and
the Pit Recharge Catchment Area.
When the dewatering operations stop, the open pit and/or underground workings would begin to fill
with water. For the open pit workings, a portion of the inflow would come from ground water. For
underground mine alternatives, nearly all water entering the mine workings would be from ground
water.
In 5 to 26 years, depending on whether water from the Starrem Reservoir is used to augment filling
of the pit, the hydrologic balance of the ground water system would reach a new equilibrium. In all
action alternatives, this equilibrium would be a water table, within the zone of influence, lower than
pre-mining conditions.
The open or backfilled mine workings would be more permeable than the surrounding rock and
would lower the potentiometric surface of the ground water near the mine. Alternative C
(underground mining), Alternative D (a combination of open pit and underground mining), or
Alternative F (complete back-filling of the pit) would have similar though somewhat smaller effects
than described above. This reduction of the potentiometric surface could reduce the flow of nearby
springs and seeps and flows to streams that are fed by ground water.
Permanent waste rock disposal areas would disturb the original surface areas (Alternatives B, C, D,
E, and G), thus locally reducing the recharge to the ground water system, and possibly lowering the
water table. The discharge from springs covered by waste rock would be routed to detention
ponds or sediment traps down-gradient of the waste rock disposal areas.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-93
,R3Q
10
1
BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
TOPOGRAPHIC AND GROUND WATER
DIVIDE (PRE-MIMNG)
=FT
s
X-—^
^SN»14S, -y "~"; ^
("f / \ '.jfa
V>7V - iffy C*W
''f3 V"> A CM
.. c-siii€.MC&M
LEGEND
SW"^.. LOCATION OF TRIBUTARY
W STREAM MONITORING SITES
ZONE Of INFLUENCE DUE TO MINE PIT DEWATERING AND DRAINAGE
C.n
JJ-32
WETLANDS AREA
""• SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
71
O SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
MAJOR CREEK DRAINAGE
BASIN DIVIDE
_ . _ MONITORING SITE DRAINAGE
BASIN
POST-MINING GROUND WATER
DIVIDE
STREAM
ED
CU
ED
r~-v
> 100 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
10 FOOT TO 100 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
1 FOOT TO 10 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
ROAD
MINE PIT AREA
FIGURE S-9, ZONE OF INFLUENCE DO TO PIT
DEWATERING AND THE PIT RECHARGE CATCHMENT AREA
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-94
At the initiation of construction, surface water would be diverted around the tailings and waste
rock disposal areas and discharged to the drainages down gradient of mine facilities. Ground water
encountered beneath the tailings disposal facility would be collected in an underdrain system and
returned to the Marias Creek drainage down gradient of the tailings disposal facility.
Potential water quality impacts could include contamination of ground water with acid drainage,
elevated dissolved metals, leached radionuclides, nitrates from blasting and nutrients from fertilizers
used in reclamation, cyanide and ammonia from tailings facility leakage, and chemical or fuel spills.
Impacts to ground water quality are not expected to be substantial with proper design,
construction, operation, and reclamation of Crown Jewel Project facilities.
A network of ground water wells would be located around and downgradient of the mine facilities
and disturbed areas and monitored on a regular basis to detect ground water quality impacts
resulting from construction or operation of the Crown Jewel Project facilities.
4.7 SURFACE WATER
All action alternatives would alter the surface and ground water regimes of the five streams
originating on Buckhorn Mountain. Surface water runoff would be impacted by excavation,
grading, and fill operations. Lower ground water levels, which provide base flow to the streams,
and water withdrawals would reduce stream flow. The temporary impact to surface water would
be greatest during mine dewatering and after the mine is completely excavated. Permanent
impacts, after the completed mine fills with water, are expected to be less than the short-term,
during-mining impacts.
In Alternatives B and G, the completed open pit mine would fill with water and discharge into the
Gold Bowl drainage in approximately 26 years of natural pit filling following completion of mining.
If water is pumped from Starrem Reservoir to augment pit filling, the pit would refill in
approximately five to six years. Discharge flows, after pit filling, would be about 71 gpm under
average conditions. The discharged water could cause some erosion to the Gold Bowl drainage
channel seasonally and could add a minor amount of sediment loading during high flow periods.
Potential impacts to surface water quality from sediment loading would be minimized by
construction and maintenance of sediment control structures, as well as reclamation required under
site permits. After completion of underground mining (Alternative C), flows from mine workings
could be expected to almost immediately discharge from 27 to 57 gpm. Alternatives involving a
combination of surface and underground mining, partial or complete backfilling (Alternatives D, E,
and F, respectively) would be expected to discharge slightly less water to surface flow than
Alternatives B and G.
Construction and operation of the tailings disposal areas, for all action alternatives, would
permanently disturb the original surface area and cover some springs and seeps in the Marias Creek
drainage (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) or the Nicholson Creek drainage (Alternatives F and G).
Alternatives with permanent waste rock disposal areas would permanently alter the premining
topography (Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G) and ground water recharge and surface water flows to
areas immediately down gradient of the sites, including the frog pond. Alternative F would include
a temporary waste rock stockpile that, at the end of mining, would be completely returned to the
mine pit, and the stockpile and mine pit site would be restored to a topography similar to the
premining condition. In Alternative G, the waste rock disposal area would completely cover the
frog pond.
Several surface water monitoring locations surrounding the Crown Jewel Project would be
monitored, as specified in permits, to detect potential water quality problems resulting from
construction and operation of the Crown Jewel Project facilities. The Proponent would be required
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-95
to obtain an NPDES permit before releasing any stormwater runoff and mine water discharge. The
NPDES permit would specify allowable concentrations and loading of potential pollutants in the
discharges. Reduction of stream flow in area drainages would be unavoidable for all action
alternatives due to mine dewatering. Minor losses to stream flow would also occur when
precipitation falls into the open pit, thereby reducing overland flow. Alternatives with underground
mining would have less impact primarily because overland flow would only be affected by
subsidence or near-surface ground fracturing. Some minor loss of stream flow would likewise
occur in all action alternatives due to .the precipitation on the tailings disposal facility, where water
would be re-cycled to the mill or lost to evaporation.
The maximum reduction in stream flow due to open pit mining occurs at the watershed headwaters
at the completion of mining, when the pit has been fully excavated and dewatered to facilitate
operations. The reduction in stream flow would result from the interception of the surface runoff
component of the stream flow by the open pit, and the interception of a portion of the ground
water flow (base flow) component by the drawdown caused by pit excavation and dewatering.
The reduction in stream flow would decrease when the pit is filled, estimated to occur between 5
to 26 years (approximately five to six years if augmented with water from Starrem Reservoir) after
the cessation of mining and pumping, because the higher water surface in the pit would reduce the
ground water table drawdown and, therefore, increase base flows. The percentage of reduction in
stream flow would decrease in a downstream direction as the drainage area increases.
The reduction in stream flow would vary based on the portion of drainage impacted by the pit, the
ground water table elevation change, and the amount of precipitation falling on the drainage.
Surface and ground water systems at the Crown Jewel Project site are interconnected. An
analysis of the potential impacts to surface water flows from mining activities was conducted by
Hydro-Geo; this study focused on the surface runoff and baseflow reductions due to mine
dewatering. The drainages that would be impacted by the mine dewatering include Nicholson,
Marias, Bolster, Gold, and Ethel Creeks.
A summary of the results of this study are presented in Table S-13, Summary of Average
Precipitation Year (20.0 Inches) Impacts on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages, and Table S-14, Impacts
of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages.
Potential surface water quality impacts from mine dewatering would depend on several factors
including:
• The quantity of drainage from the mine workings; and,
• The potential for generation of acid and leaching of contaminants from exposed rock and the
resulting quality of the drainage.
Potential impacts to water quality from mining are sedimentation, acid drainage, increases in
dissolved metals, nitrate increases from blasting, and temperature increases from reduction in
stream flow, and use of habitat improvement structures.
Impacts to water quality as a result of sedimentation are not expected to be substantial with proper
design, construction, and operation of mine drainage and stormwater facilities, followed by
reclamation of disturbed sites.
If acid rock drainage develops from waste rock, the ore stockpile, or the mine pit, it would likely
cause elevated levels of dissolved metals. Similarly, radionuclides could be leached by infiltration
of precipitation or runoff through exposed ore and waste rock, or from mine pit walls. Dissolved
metals and radionuclides could present a risk to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and humans who
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
I
S1
(o
s?
TABLE S-13, SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PRECIPITATION YEAR (20.0 INCHES) IMPACTS OF BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN DRAINAGES
(Impacts in Acre-Feet Per Year)
Drainage
Existing Volume
(Pra-mlnlng)
Base
Flow
Surface
Runoff
Volume Qaki ( + I/Loss (-) at End of Mining
Base
Flow
Percent
Surface
Runoff
Percent
Volume Oabi ( + I/Lose (-) Post Reclamation
(Following Pit Lake FHBng and Discharge)2
Base
Flow
Percent
Surface
Runoff
Percent
Nicholson Creek2
SW-9
SW-7
SW-6
SW-1
At Toroda
Creek1
2.14
152
49.1
444
2,062
8.3
40
13.4
148
687
-19.6
-26.9
+ 0.1
-26.7
-26.7
Marias Creek
SW-8
SW-2
At Toroda
Creek1
92.4
288
1,620
33.0
80.6
453
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
91.6
-17.7
+ 0.2
-6.0
-1.3
-4.9
-6.9
-
-6.9
-6.9
-0.4
-.01
—
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-59.0
-17.1
--
-4.6
-1.0
-16.8
-19.8
--
-19.8
-19.8
-78.5
-13.0
-
-4.5
-1.0
-0.6
-0.2
--
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.1
"
+ 108
+ 106
--
+ 106
+ 106
-0.2
-O.2
-0.2
+ 1,300
+ 265
-
+ 72
+ 15
-0.6
-0.2
'"
Gold Creek
SW-10
SW-4
At Myers
Creek1
11.2
74.6
418
6.0
61.0
342
-4.6
-4.9
-4.9
-41
-6.6
-1.2
-
~
-
-
—
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
Bolster Creek
SW-1 4
SW-1 3
SW-11
SW-1 2
At Myers
Creek1
36.8
124
21.0
72.8
297
20.1
43.3
9.6
23.2
100
-3.2
-3.3
-6.4
-6.9
-10.2
-8.7
-2.7
-30.5
-9.5
-3.4
-1.2
-1.2
-0.5
-0.5
-1.8
-6.0
-2.8
-5.2
-2.2
-1.8
-2.6
-2.7
-3.7
-4.0
-6.7
-8.1
-1.2
-0.2
-7.1
-2.2
-17.6
-5.5
-2.3
--
--
--
-1.2
-1.2
-0.5
-0.5
-1.7
-
-
--
-6.0
-2.8
-5.2
•2.2
-1.7
Ethel Creek
SW-5
At Myers
Creek'
353
497
148
208
-
—
~
--
-
••
-
—
~
"•
--
--
-
--
-
™
Notes: 1 Flow rates extrapolated based on drainage area ratio.
2 Post reclamation values include a post pit filling discharge of 71 gpm to Gold Bowl drainage in the Nicholson Creek watershed.
Indicates less than 0.1%.
Source: Table 6, Volumes Lost During and Postmining - Upper Monitoring Sites, Table 7, Volume Lost During and Postmining - Lower Monitoring Sites, found in Analysis of Stream
Depletions Resulting From the Proposed Crown Jewel Project, Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc., 1996.
Values displayed to not less than 0. 1 inch.
I
-5
2
to
SJ
i
20
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-97
TABLE S-14, IMPACTS OF MINING ON BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN DRAINAGES23
Drainage Basin
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Monitoring Site
SW-9
SW-7
SW-6
SW-1
At Toroda Creek
SW-8
SW-2
At Toroda Creek
SW-10
SW-4
At Myers Creek
SW-1 4
SW-1 3
SW-11
SW-1 2
At Myers Creek
SW-5
At Myers Creek
Drainage Basin Area
(acres)
143
479
536
2,222
10,310
792
1,381
7,774
42
407
2,280
105
743
72
397
1,722
1,365
1,924
Stream Flow Gain ( + I/Loss (-)
% Normal1-4
End of Mining
-82.4
-17.6
+ 0.2
-5.7
-1.2
-0.4
-0.1
1
-27.1
-3.6
-0.6
-7.7
-2.7
-22.6
-7.8
-3.0
__i
__i
Reclamation/Post Pit-Filling
+ 306
+ 55.2
__i
+ 14.6
+ 3.1
-0.4
-0.1
i
-5.3
-0.7
-0.1
-6.8
-2.4
-13.9
-4.7
-2.1
__1
__1
Notes: 1 . - indicates less than 0.1 %
2. Normal annual precipitation estimated at 20.0 inches.
3. Stream flows in this column include flow from the pit lake to Nicholson Creek in the Post-Reclamation
scenario for the normal precipitation of 20.0 inches. This flow would average about 71 gpm to Gold Bowl
drainage in the Nicholson Creek Watershed.
4. Stream flow gain/loss includes the impacts on both base flow and surface runoff.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-98
drink impacted water and eat aquatic organisms. Gee-chemical testing indicates that the ore and
waste rock have a low potential to generate acid, leach metals, or release radionuclides.
There would likely be increases of nitrate concentration in surface streams as a result of blasting in
the pit (ANFO), seepage through the waste rock disposal areas (residual ANFO), and sewage
disposal. Increased nitrate and phosphorus loading could also result from the application of
fertilizer for revegetation during mine reclamation.
Impacts to water quality from stream depletion could involve a slight increase in the rate of daily
temperature changes along the upper reaches of some site streams both during and after mining.
In the lower reaches of site streams, daily stream temperatures are not expected to increase from
stream depletion; therefore, dissolved oxygen concentrations and bacterial populations are not
expected to change substantially from current conditions.
The quality of water to be discharged from the proposed mine pit was evaluated in a study
performed by Schafer and Associates, Inc. The study made several conservative assumptions that
were intended to cause the prediction to be at the upper bounds of what would be expected.
Based on this study, pit water is predicted to be alkaline and have moderate to high levels of total
dissolved solids. Table S-15, Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the Proposed
Open Pit to Washington Aquatic Life Quality Criteria, lists the concentrations of parameters
predicted to occur in the pit water during and after filling, as well as the range of parameters
concentrations measured in baseline surface water samples from the Crown Jewel Project area.
Water that would fill and ultimately discharge from the open pit is predicted to exceed the
Washington fresh water chronic criteria for cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and selenium and the
Washington fresh water chronic criteria for cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and selenium, and the
Washington State fresh water acute criteria for silver and selenium. Of these parameters, copper,
lead, and selenium have been detected at least once in baseline receiving streams at concentrations
above the criteria. Expected impacts to aquatic resources from these predicted exceedances are
described in Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations.
Pit water quality would be monitored during and after mining. Response strategies identifying
corrective actions and financial security appropriate to accomplish the corrective action would be
required and are described in Section 2.4, Management and Mitigation, Section 2.5, Monitoring
Measures, and Section 2.6, Performance Securities.
The Crown Jewel Project would result in the loss of stream channels in Gold Bowl drainage,
Starrem Creek, Marias Creek, and Nicholson Creek. The flows, seasonal variation of flows,
sedimentation, functions, and values could change in the upper portions of Marias, Nicholson,
Ethel, Bolster, and Gold Creeks. The current mitigation proposals include minimal on-site, in-kind
mitigation for these losses/changes.
The lineal feet of channel removed, in the headwaters of these systems, are substantial (7,100 -
12,200 feet), as set forth in Section 4.10, Wetlands. Without active steps to replace channels, it
may take longer for the system to reach a new equilibrium. For these reasons, it would be
desirable to design, construct, and monitor replacement channel systems on-site which would
provide aquatic functions and values.
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS
The Proponent has applied to the WADOE for new water right permits and authorizations to change
existing water rights. These applications would apply to all action alternatives. Any WADOE
approval of a water right application may contain special provisions or conditions which must be
satisfied for the water right to be used.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-99
TABLE S-1 5, COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE
PROPOSED OPEN PIT TO WASHINGTON AQUATIC LIFE QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter1
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium4-0
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead"-7
Manganese
Mercury3-6
Nickel
Selenium6-7
Silver4'6
Thallium
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate6
PH7
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
TDS6
Predicted Range
In Pit Water
Quality During
Initial Stages of
Natural Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.066-0.069
< 0.0001 -0.045
0.011-0.012
0.0007-0.0022
0.005-0.010
0.012-0.022
0.0004-O.OO05
< 0.0001 -0.037
0.08-1.27
0.0016
0.036-0.154
0.067-0.072
0.011-0.022
0.067-0.079
0.01-0.02
13-98
3-4
4-5
1-5
56-121
1
0.11-0.15
0.19-0.21
29-386
7.8-8.16
44-263
215-621
Predicted Range
hi PH Water
Quality When Pit
Is Full Assuming
Natural Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.049-0.050
< 0.0001 -0.049
0.011
O.OO08-0.0021
O.005-0.01 1
O.01 5-0.069
0.0004-0.0006
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-100
Water use at the Crown Jewel Project would be a temporary use that would cease once the
operation is decommissioned and reclaimed. Permit authorization to use water would then be
cancelled. Changes to existing water rights would also be temporary and the rights would return
to the present lands and uses; however, certain long-term impacts would remain (i.e., pit lake
evaporation, changing hydrologic balance, etc.).
The maximum annual quantity of water requested for all uses at the mine and from all sources is
675 acre-feet. The following requests for water rights are common to all alternatives.
The Proponent proposes to construct a reservoir near the mouth of the Starrem Creek drainage
which would impound runoff from this basin. A water right application has been submitted
requesting authorization to capture up to 20 cfs (500 acre-feet/year) of water from this basin
through out the year. Another application requests authorization to divert up to 6 cfs of water
from Myers Creek from February 1 through July 31. This water would be pumped into the Starrem
Reservoir until needed at the mine site.
These new water rights from the Myers Creek drainage, if approved, would be subject to meeting
instream flow requirements on Myers Creek.
The Proponent also seeks to transfer seven existing water rights from Mary Ann Creek and Myers
Creek downstream to the proposed new Myers Creek diversion. Transferring the point of diversion
downstream would result in additional water in the reach between the existing and new points of
diversion during those times when water would have been used for irrigation.
Application has been made to transfer irrigation rights presently being used from a well at the Lost
Creek Ranch for use at the mine. The water would be piped from the well to the Starrem
Reservoir. Water withdrawal would be limited to the historical consumptive use, resulting in no
hydrologic change to Myers Creek.
The Proponent has also applied for 15 gpm, up to 25 acre-feet per year, from a well for domestic
supply at the mine. The domestic water would be used for purposes other than drinking such as
washing, showering, and restrooms. Effluent would be treated using either a septic tank/drain field
or a package treatment plant. This would locally increase flow to near-surface water features.
The projected water requirements are shown on Table S-16, Estimated Water Usage Requirements.
The volume of water used would vary depending on the phase of the operation. The maximum
water use would occur during operational start-up because there would be no recycle water
available in the milling circuit or the tailings facility. Sufficient water must be added to the system
in order to initiate the milling process. Also, as part of the operational start-up, water would be
needed to fill the Starrem Reservoir.
4.9 VEGETATION
Native vegetation in the area plays an important role in controlling erosion, providing wildlife
habitat, and maintaining biological diversity. Disturbance to the vegetation resources can result in
impacts to these ecosystem functions.
Anticipated impacts to vegetation are directly related to the estimated acres of disturbance.
Alternative C would disturb the least amount of vegetation (415 acres) while Alternative E would
disturb the greatest amount of vegetation (928 acres). With the exception of the final pit area
(Alternatives B, D, E, and G) and the surface subsidence created above the underground mine
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-101
TABLE S-16, ESTIMATED WATER USAGE REQUIREMENTS1 |
Estimated Total
Water Usage for
Life-of-Mine'
(acr«-f«et)
Reclamation
(gpm)
Normal Operations
a
a
to
Domestic
(gpm)
= i?
ll
S3
r Domestic
(gpm)
= E
So.
3
n 1.
ii
Construction
(gpm)
a
c
B
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
<
•?
in
in
Lti
in
8
o
in
in
en
CM
^
V
00
CO
CM
^
8
n
CO
- _2 "2 J '§ 'S.J
llWllf HI |i
tiiiiHi If! il
.is"-°'°°'-E o"?^ --c
<»S_9«)f:§-£ So» o»
Except as noted in (2), water usage requireme
any estimates of water possibly needed to rep
This water usage estimate assumes no chemic
this table assumes that road dust suppression
road dust suppression could be reduced with t
could be considered, including calcium or sodii
Soil Cement, and DO-4 (or the appropriate pro
capable of providing dust control and lessening
gpm means gallons per minute.
Estimated Water Usage from the Proponent.
To calculate acre feet for life of mine first calc
(43,560 sq ft/acre) x (24 hr/day) x 365 days/y
construction + start-up phase usage x years o
years of reclamation and pit filling.
If water is pumped from the Starrem Reservoir
for the pit lake water to reach the 4,850 foot <
from Starrem Reservoir for 5.2 years.
•-'CM cj -tin co
i
z
Estimated Years of Activity
lamation
o
Normal
Operations
a
a
(/)
Construction
Alternative
O
o
o
o
<
-
-
m
-
CO
O
-
in
Q
-
-
LU
CO
in
LU
-
fs
.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-102
workings (Alternatives C and D), and the proposed quarry in Alternative C, reclamation would
eventually mitigate most impacts to vegetation.
Merchantable timber would be harvested from the areas proposed for direct disturbance and would
be conducted in accordance with Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR direction and their applicable
regulatory requirements. The impacts resulting from timber harvesting would, for the most part,
not be irreversible. Some irreversible and irretrievable commitment of the timber resource would be
realized with the implementation of any of the action alternatives due to the loss of soil
productivity and old-growth ecosystems. Proposed reclamation practices are expected to gradually
restore the timber resources within the Crown Jewel Project area.
The Crown Jewel Project is located within portions of the Cedar, Ethel Creek, and Gold Creek
Cattle and Horse Allotments. During the life of the Crown Jewel Project, the entire Project site
would be fenced to exclude livestock. This action would temporarily suspend livestock grazing
inside the fenced areas. Implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in the direct
physical loss of useable range and forage production, during the life of the Crown Jewel Project,
for 12 to 39 years depending on the timing, extent, and success of reclamation efforts.
No federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant species are known to occur in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project. However, three species listed on the Region 6, Regional
Forester's Sensitive Species List (Botryium crenulatum, Listera borealis and Plantanthera obtusata)
do exist in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project. It has been determined that the loss of
sensitive populations predicted for each action alternative would be unlikely to affect the viability,
of these species. Species of Concern, Arix capillari and C. dioca, occur in an off-site drainage that
would receive little, if any, impact from mine operations. Therefore, these species are judged
unlikely to be impacted from the Crown Jewel Project.
4.10 WETLANDS
Wetlands have notable ecosystem functions such as biological diversity, productivity, and
sedimentation control. A series of wetland investigations were conducted over an area of
approximately 4,000 acres and determined that 49.26 acres of wetlands exist in the area.
As a result of all action alternatives, it is expected that both direct, indirect, temporary, and
permanent effects would occur. Wetlands that would potentially be affected by facility
construction (i.e., tailings facility, water reservoir), pit dewatering, and other mining related
activities are shown in Table S-17, Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact
Classification.
Table S-18, Wetland and Stream Direct Impacts, identifies, by component, the direct loss or
reduction in acreage which would result from all action alternatives; these losses due to filling or
physical disturbance would range as follows:
• Alternative A - 0.01 acres;
• Alternative B - 3.40 acres;
• Alternative C - 3.40 acres;
• Alternative D - 3.41 acres;
• Alternative E - 3.43 acres;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-103
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Area
Nearfoy Spring
or Seep
Description
Impact Classifications
Frog Pond
1.8 acre
SN-15
Seep
Manmade pond in glacial deposits reportedly excavated
by ranchers many years ago, and supported by
embankment for Forest Service Road 3575-120. Pond
fills each spring, (55.1 acre surface runoff and interflow
catchment area), overflows to north into North Fork
Nicholson Creek. Full pond reduces to a small pond in
late summer and fall through evaporation, seepage, and
livestock use. Classified as a semi-permanently flooded
PEM Class II wetland. No springs in evidence (Seep SN-
15 has had no flow in June or October of 1992 through
1995). Waste rock pile runoff will be captured in
diversion ditches and sediment ponds for Alternatives B,
D, E, and F. See Section 4.7, Surface Water, for
percentages of catchments impacted.
IP for Alternatives B, D, E, and F.
D for Alternative G due to
coverage of waste rock pile.
P for Alternative C.
C1A
0.8 acre
None
Identified
A steep PFO/PSS Class II wetland located in glacial
deposits at crest of Nicholson/Marias Creek divide,
beginning near outflow from sediment pond at end of
Forest Road 3575-120 culvert which captures Roosevelt
adit (RA) flows emanating from adit's dump. Supplied
by RA flows as well as surface/ground water. Impact
from reduced adit flows, and surface/ground water
dimunition, RA is at the edge of V Zone of Influence.
Pit lake filling to elevation 4850' will restore most of RA
and other flows. Lower hydraulic conductivity and
higher storativity of glacial deposits will buffer impact.
IT for all alternatives
C1B
8.0 acres
None
Identified
A PFO/PEM/PSS Class III wetland located in glacial
deposits downstream of C1A in the upper South Fork
Nicholson drainage. Supplied by continuation of CIA
flows and about 80 to 100 acres of surface water and
interflow catchment area. Impact from reduced RA
flows and surface/ground water diminution. Pit lake
filling to elevation 4850' will restore most of RA and
other flows 800' to 1800' from edge of 1' Zone of
Influence. Lower hydraulic conductivity and higher
storativity of glacial deposits will buffer impact.
Possible impact due to portion being within 1 ,OOO'
buffer zone and stream flow depletion.
P for all alternatives.
C1C
0.1 acre
None
Identified
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland located in glacial deposits
downstream of C1A in the upper North Fork Marias
drainage. Supplied by possible subsurface continuation
of CIA flows and about 80 to 100 acres of surface
water and interflow catchment area. Direct impact from
tailings dam in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Possible
Impact due to being within 1 ,OOO' buffer zone.
Alternatives F and G.
D for Alternatives B, D, and E.
P for Alternatives F and G.
C2 or PE
1.73 acre
None
Identified
A PSS/PEM Class II wetland located in glacial deposits
downstream of C1C in upper North Fork Marias Creek
drainage. Supplied by continuation of C1C flows and
about 100 acres of surface water and interflow
catchment area. Direct impact from tailings dam in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
C3
0.56 acre
JJ-18
(Spring)
A small PEM Class III seep wetland located in Gold Bowl
drainage about 2.000' downstream of SW-9 and 1.500'
upstream of SW-7 near edge of glacial deposits, about
1,600' from 1' drawdown limit. Marginally hydric soils.
No impacts.
N for all alternatives.
C4
0.40 acre
JJ-14
(Drill Hole)
A PEM Class II wetland in the upper reaches of the
Marias drainage apparently created by road
construction. Supplied partially by JJ-14 flows and
about 100 acres of surface water and interflow
catchment area. Direct impact from tailings dam in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-104
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Area
C5
0.70 acre
C6
300 ft2
C7
1.23 acre
C8
200ft2
C9A.B.C
2.75 acre
C10
200ft2
C11
350 ft2
C12
0.08 acre
Nearby Spring
or Seep
None
Identified
JJ-16, JJ-34
(Seeps)
JJ-34
(Seep)
SN-20
(Seep)
SN-27
(Seep)
SN-10
(Spring)
JJ-21
(Spring)
JJ-18
(Spring)
Description
A PEM Class III wetland apparently formed by road
construction located in Nicholson drainage to north of
C1A. About 400' from 1' drawdown limit in glacial
deposits, few wetland functions and values. Pit filling
reduces impacts to minimal. Possible due to proximity
to 1 ' drawdown all alternatives.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in a clearcut area in a side
canyon entering the Marias drainage near toe of tailings
dam. In glacial deposits, supply from spring to west.
Impacted by tailings dam and borrow area in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
A PEM/PSS Class II wetland in a depression in a small,
shallow canyon in glacial deposits, tributary to Marias
Creek drainage. Logged and overgrazed-wetland values
severely restricted. 1,800' from V drawdown zone.
Topographic water supply area not impacted by
facilities. No impacts for any alternatives.
A PEM Class III wetland in North Fork Nicholson Creek
along intermittent stream, formed by logging road
crossing stream. Wetland functions limited; under toe
of Alternative B, E, F, and G waste rock. 2,400' from
1 ' drawdown zone. Pit filling reduces impacts to
minimal.
Three PEM/PSS Class II wetlands in shallow valley in
North Fork Nicholson Creek, east of frog pond.
Between Forest Service roads, partially in glacial
deposits, disturbed by grazing, positive wetland values.
700' from Alternative B waste rock toe, 600' from
Alternative B, 1 00' to 200' from Alternatives E and F,
and covered by Alternative G. 2,000' from 1 '
drawdown zone. Waste rock pile runoff will be
captured in diversion ditches and sediment ponds and
impact surface water and interflow catchment area for
Alternatives B, D, E, and F. Severity of impacts
dependent on distance from waste rock toe and
hydrologic parameters attained by waste rock at
equilibrium.
A PEM Class III wetland north of C8 in the North Fork
Nicholson Creek in abandoned road bed. Logged, very
little wetland function. 600' from Alternative B waste
rock toe, 3,100' from 1' drawdown. No impacts to
surface water and interflow catchment area for
Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternatives E, F. and G
waste rock piles directly impact wetland. Alternative D
topsoil stockpile temporary impact.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in the Gold Bowl drainage.
Previously logged, very little wetland value. Impacted
by pit or underground workings for all alternatives.
A small Class III wetland on the north side of the road
near C1B in the South Fork Nicholson Creek. In glacial
deposits, 1,900' from V drawdown, water supply in
glacial deposits, upstream recharge. 1.8OO' from
drawdown and buffered by glacial deposit storage.
Limited wetland function due to livestock and road. No
impact from Alternatives B, C. D. and E. About 1 ,000'
above Alternative F tailings dam. Indirect temporary
impact due to Alternative G tailings facilities.
Impact Classifications
P for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
N for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B, E, F and G.
N for Alternatives C and D.
IT for Alternatives B and D.
N for Alternative C.
IP for Alternatives F and E.
D for Alternative G.
N for Alternatives B and C.
IT for Alternative D
D for Alternatives E, F, and G.
D for all alternatives.
N for Alternatives B, C, D, E and
F.
IT for Alternative G.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-105
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Ana
C13
840ft2
C14
2.25 acres
C15
0.19 acre
C16
0.31 acre
C17
0.05 acre
C18
0.16 acre
C19
0.09 acre
C2O. A,B,C,D
1 .000 ft2
C21 A,B,C,D
1 ,000 ft2
PA
0.07 acre
PB
0.20 acre
PC
0.06 acre
PO
0.06 acre
Nearby Spring
or Seep
JJ-18
(Spring)
SN-22
(Seep)
JJ-20
(Spring)
SN-26
(Seep)
JJ-20
(Spring)
None
Identified
SN-12
(Spring)
SN-16
SN-17
(Spring)
JJ-20
(Spring)
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
Description
A PFO/PSS/PEM Class III wetland in the Gold Bowl
drainage, located in glacial deposits about 900' from 1 '
drawdown, water supply from glacial deposits,
upstream recharge. Limited wetland function due to
small size. Possible impact by facilities construction for
all alternatives.
A PEM Class II wetland in a depression at intersection of
Nicholson drainage and side canyon in glacial deposits.
Logged in past but presently undisturbed. 2,700' from
1 ' drawdown zone. Water supply from glacial deposits,
upstream and side slope surface and ground water
recharge. Too far from drawdown zone, and buffered
by glacial deposit storage to be impacted Alternatives B,
C, D, and E. Covered by tailings Alternatives F and G.
A small PEM Class II wetland in glacial deposits created
by damming Nicholson Creek and adjacent seeps.
3,000' from 1 ' drawdown. Grazed and occupied by
campers. Too far from drawdown zone, and buffered
by glacial deposit storage to be impacted by
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Covered by tailings
Alternatives F and G.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek,
wetland function limited, on toe of north facing slope,
500' from 1 ' drawdown zone. Water supply from
surface runoff and ground water. Possible impact due
to proximity of 1 ' drawdown zone.
A PEM/PSS Class II wetland in South Bolster Creek.
very little wetland function on south facing slope, 3OO'
from 1 ' drawdown zone. Water supply from surface
water runoff and ground water. Possible impact due to
proximity of 1' drawdown zone.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek,
very little wetland function, on south facing slope, 300'
from 1 ' drawdown zone. Supply from surface and
ground water. Possible impact due to 1 ' drawdown
zone.
A PEM Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek, very
little wetland function, on south facing slope 1,700'
from 1' drawdown zone. Water supply from surface
water and ground water. Too far from 1 ' drawdown
zone to be impacted.
Class III wetlands formed by seeps in glacial deposits
along the banks of Nicholson Creek, very little wetland
function. 3,500' from 1 ' drawdown zone. Water
supply from surface and ground water from adjacent
slopes. Too far from 1' drawdown to be impacted.
Class II wetlands formed by seeps along bank in North
Fork Nicholson Creek beginning about 2.0OO'
downstream of SW-6 and continuing for 2.0OO'. About
5.OOO' to 6.0OO' away from 1 ' drawdown. Too far
from 1 ' drawdown zone to be impacted.
These are PSS and PFO Class III and IV wetlands
located near the glacial deposits boundary and near the
1 ' drawdown boundary. They may be impacted by a
temporary reduction in surface and ground water
recharge and by facility construction for all alternatives.
A PSS Class III hillside seep on the ridgeline at elevation
5,200 ± between Marias and Ethel Creek on proposed
power line alignment, 600' from 1 ' drawdown zone.
Possible impact from water table reduction at this
relatively high elevation for all alternatives.
Impact Classifications
P for all alternatives.
N for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
D for Alternatives F and G.
N for Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
D for Alternatives F and G.
P for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
IT for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-106
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Area
RA
0.24 acre
A
0.52 acre
B
5,600 ft2
CA/CB
0.57 acre
DA/DB
25.2 acres
FA/FB
0.76 acre
Nearby Spring
or Seep
SN-7
(Spring)
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
Description
A PEM/PSS Class IV hillside seep wetland on Gold Creek
along the waterline route, about 1,200' from 1'
drawdown zone. Surface and ground water supply from
slopes not impacted by de watering. No impacts from
any alternative.
A PSS/PFO Class II wetland located west of Myers
Creek. No impacts.
A PSS/PFO Class III wetland located west of Myers
Creek. No impacts.
A PEM Class IV wetland located west of Myers Creek at
the proposed Starrem Reservoir site. Impacted by
reservoir.
A PEM/PSS and PFO Class II wetland located along
Myers Creek at the Canadian Border. No impacts.
A PFO/PSS and PEM Class III riparian wetland located
on the west side of the road along Myers Creek.
impacted by Starrem Reservoir embankment.
Impact Classifications
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-107
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Spring or Seep
JJ-3
(Spring)
JJ-4
JJ-5
(Spring)
JJ-6
JJ-6a
JJ-6b
JJ-7
(Springs)
JJ-9
(Seep)
JJ-10
(Spring)
JJ-14
(drill hole)
JJ-15
Spring
JJ-26
(Spring)
JJ-34
(Seep)
SN-6
(Spring)
SN-7
(Spring)
SN-18
(Seep)
SN-12
(Spring)
SN-14
(Spring)
SN-16
(Spring)
SN-17
(Spring)
Nearby Wetland
Area
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None Delineated
C4
C6
PEorC2
C7
None Delineated
RA
None Delineated
C-17
None Delineated
C18
C19
Description
East Fork Marias Creek-Flows collected and routed to
water trough. Across ridge and 4,500' from predicted 1 '
drawdown. Flows ranged from 0.2 to 15 gpm.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-Flows originate from till
material distributed by road construction. Over 5,000
feet from predicted V drawdown. 6/92 flows <0.5 gpm,
no measurement in recent years.
JJ-6 springs originate above FS Road 1 20; partially
developed in past. Flows disappear, resurface as JJ-7
below road, then disappear again. Approx. 1,600' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Near 4,500' contour and
bedrock/glacial deposits contact. Possible impact due to
4,500' elev.
On South Fork Marias Creek near logging road and 1 8"
culvert. Occurs above inferred bedrock fault in glacial
sediments, flowing during each measurement from <0.5
to 3.5 gpm.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-originates at uncased drill
hole in glacial sediments at elev. 4,400, about 700' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Flowing during each
measurement from 1 to 1 5 gpm. Would be covered by
proposed tailings disposal facility.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-downstream end of seepage
area below C6 at elev. 4.250'. 2.100' from predicted 1'
drawdown. Occurs above inferred bedrock fault in glacial
sediments. Flowing during each measurement from 2 to
1 2 gpm. Adjacent to toe of proposed tailings dam, and
road for reclaim solution pond.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-occurs above inferred
bedrock fault in glacial sediment-would be covered by
proposed tailings disposal facility.
Seep above inferred bedrock fault in glacial sediments
containing intermittent standing water. No flow in 1992,
not measured in subsequent years. Elev. 4,350', 1,700'
from predicted 1' drawdown.
Located at elev. 4,100', about 900' from predicted 1'
drawdown. Flows during each measurement from 1 to
10 gpm. Possible impact due to proximity to 1'
drawdown.
Located at elev. 4,050' about 1,200' from predicted 1'
drawdown on north side of Gold Creek. Recharge area
from ridge between Gold Creek and North Fork Nicholson
Creek. Would not be affected by proposed pit or facilities
because of distance, elevation, and hydraulic isolation of
lower elevation Gold Creek thalweg.
Seep along road across Gold Creek-see SN-7 discussion
above.
Along road above stream bed at elev. 4.250' about 400'
from predicted 1 ' drawdown. No flows most years when
measured. Possible impact due to distance from 1 '
drawdown.
Along logging road at elev. 4,250' about 6OO' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Flows ranged from no flow to
1.8 gpm. Originates from fault and change in bedrock
lithology. Possible impact due to distance from 1 '
drawdown.
Along road adjacent to Bolster Creek at elev. 4,000'
about 1,100' from predicted 1' drawdown. Flows ranged
from 0.5 to 2 gpm. There would be no impact due to
distance and elevation.
Along road adjacent to Bolster Creek at elev. 3,850'
about 2,000' from predicted 1 ' drawdown. No flow to 2
gpm measured. There would be no impact due to
distance and elevation.
Impact Classifications
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D due to tailings pond.
Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
D due to tailings pond.
Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
P due to access road. Alternative
B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental S.npact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-108
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS. AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Spring or Seep
JJ-22
(Seep)
JJ-23
(Spring)
JJ-24
(Spring)
JJ-25
(Spring)
JJ-33
SN-21
(Seeps)
JJ-27
(Spring)
JJ-28
(Seep)
JJ-29
(Seep)
JJ-30
(Seep)
JJ-31
(Seep)
JJ-1
(Spring)
JJ-2
(Spring)
JJ-32
(Spring)
JJ-1 6
(Seep)
JJ-1 8
(Spring)
JJ-20
(Spring)
JJ-21
(Spring)
SN-3
(Spring)
SN-4
(Spring)
SN-5
(Spring)
SN-10
(Spring)
SN-15
(Seep)
Nearby Wetland
Area
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
C13
C3
C14
C11
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
Frog Pond
Description
Elev. 5,050' near edge of predicted 1 ' drawdown-pond,
no flows, indirect permanent due to change in water
table.
Across Ethel Creek from proposed mining operation.
There would be no hydraulic connection.
In Ethel Creek channel at elev. 4,400' about 2,400' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Predicted stream flow depletions
would be zero in Ethel Creek. No impacts.
North side of Ethel Creek at elev. 4,350' about 2.4OO'
from predicted 1' drawdown. Possible geologic structure
connection to JJ-22 and pit area. Possible impact.
Seeps located on the slope across Ethel Creak from the
proposed mine. There would be no hydraulic connection.
These features are located in Cedar Creek and would have
no hydraulic connection to the proposed mine facilities.
These features are located in an unnamed creek and
would have no hydraulic connection to the proposed mine
facilities.
Would be impacted by mine facilities under Alternatives B
and D, and by dewatering impacts for Alternatives C, E.
F, and G.
Gold Bowl Drainage near confluence with South Fork
Nicholson Creek. Elev. 4,300' about 1,400' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Located in glacial sediments
above inferred bedrock fault not directly connected to
proposed pit. No impacts predicted.
Near confluence of Gold Bowl Drainage and South Fork
Nicholson Creek. Elev. 4,100' about 3.0OO' from
predicted 1' drawdown. Located in glacial sediments
above inferred bedrock fault not directly connected to
proposed pit. No impacts predicted.
Uppermost flows in Gold Bowl Drainage-Spring would be
directly impacted by proposed pit under Alternatives B, D,
E, F and G, and by office and shop areas under
Alternative C.
Uppermost flows in North Fork of Nicholson Creek-
developed spring 300' from predicted 1 ' drawdown at
elev. 4,800'. Would be direct impact from waste rock
disposal areas under Alternatives B, D, E, F and G.
Probable continuation of SN-3 flows about 1 ,3OO' from
predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,600'. Would be direct
impact from waste rock disposal areas under Alternatives
B, D, E, F and G.
Elev. 4,150', 5.0OO' from predicted 1' drawdown. No
impacts predicted.
Elev. 4,300', 3,500' from predicted 1 ' drawdown. No
impacts predicted.
No flows during measurement period-Frog Pond tributary
area would be impacted by waste rock Alternatives B, D,
E, and F. Frog Pond would be covered by waste rock
disposal area under Alternative G. 800' from predicted 1 '
drawdown at elev. 4,500'.
Impact Classifications
IP for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B and D.
IP for Alternatives C, E, F and G.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B, D, E, F and
G.
P for Alternative C.
D for Alternatives B, D, E, F and
G.
P for Alternative C.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
IP for Alternatives B, D, E and F.
D for Alternative G.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-109
TABLE S-17, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Spring or Seep
Nearby Wetland
Area
Description
Impact Classifications
SN-19
(Seep)
None Delineated
6,500' from predicted 1' drawdown. No impacts
predicted.
N for all alternatives.
SN-20
(Seep)
C8
2.200' from predicted V drawdown at elev. 4,300'.
Would be impacted by waste rock under Alternatives B, E,
F and G and by sediment pond under Alternative D.
D for Alternatives B, D, E, F and
G.
N for Alternative C.
SN-27
(Seep)
C9
2,300' from predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,250'.
Would be impacted by waste rock dump under
Alternatives B, E, F and G.
D for Alternatives B, E, F and G.
N for Alternatives C and D.
SN-22
(Seep)
C13
9OO' from predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,400'. Would
be impacted by proposed facilities in all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
SN-26
(Seep)
C14
2.900' from predicted V drawdown at elev. 4,150' in
glacial sediments. No impacts predicted.
N for all alternatives.
Notes: 1. See Table 3.7.1, Spring and Seep Investigation Summary, for further description and measurement record of springs and
seeps.
2. Impact Classification:
Definition
A spring or seep which does not fall within any of the classifications listed below.
A spring or seep which is located within the proposed pit, tailings disposal area, waste rock disposal area, or oth<
physically covered or disturbed area. Direct impacts are considered to be permanent, although hydrologic functio
may be partially restored after pit filling.
Indirect permanent (IP)
Indirect Temporary (IT)
Indirect Temporary (IT)
A spring or seep which is located within or immediately adjacent to the area as defined by
the computer model predicted one-foot drawdown contour for the proposed open pit (Alternative B).
Indirect impacts may be either permanent (IP) or temporary (IT) depending on the effects of pit filling on
the particular spring or seep.
Possible (P) A spring or seep which is situated within the hydrologic regime associated with the zone of influence of the
proposed open pit, as listed below. Possible impacts are assumed to be temporary.
• Within a buffer zone extending 1,000 feet downgradient of the one foot drawdown contour;
• At an elevation above the 4,500 foot contour;
• Along or near mapped geologic structures hydraulically connected to the pit zone of influence; and,
• Within or along streams having a predicted depletion of more than one percent.
For example. Spring JJ-23 is located on the far side of Ethel Creek with respect to the proposed open pit and the
predicted one foot drawdown contour and, therefore, is not hydraulically connected to the one foot drawdown
contour.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-110
TABLE S-18, WETLAND AND STREAM DIRECT IMPACTS
Facility
Waste Rock
Disposal
Area
Project Area
Tailings
Facility
Haul/Access
Roads
Soil Borrow
Pits
Starrem
Reservoir
Myers Creek
Intake/
Pipeline
Total
Wetlands
ID
C8
C9
C10
Frog Pond
C11
C1C
C2
C4
C5
C14
C15
C20
C1A
PA
C13
CA-CB
DA-DB
Type
PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PFO/PSS
PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
Acres
0.01
0.40
0.01
1
.80
0.01
0.40
1
.72
0.40
0.70
2.30
0.20
0.02
0.80
0.07
0.02
0.57
25.23
Issue/Concern
Alternative
B
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.57
0.06
3.40
C
(acres)
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.40
D
(acres)
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.41
E
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.43
F
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.57
0.06
0.90
G
(acres)
0.01
0.40
0.01
1.80
0.01
2.30
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.57
0.06
5.40
Alternative
B
C
D E
F
G
Decreases in area stream flows at average annual precipitation of 20 inches (during operations)
Nicholson Creek (confluence with Toroda
Creek)
Marias Creek (confluence with Toroda Creek)
Bolster Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Gold Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Number of springs/seeps directly affected
Lineal feet of existing stream channels impacted
Gold Bowl Drainage
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Starrem Creek
Total
1.2%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
8
1.2%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
4
1.2% 1.2%
<0.1% <0.1%
3.0% 3.0%
0.7% 0.7%
8 8
1.2%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
6
1.2%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
7
2,300
4,200
2,025
2,200
10,725
1,350
3,550
None
2,200
7,100
1,500 1,500
4,200 4,200
550 3,900
2,200 2,200
8,450 11,800
1,500
None
8,525
2,200
12,225
1,500
None
8,300
2,200
12,000
Note: Alternative B acres determined by the Proponent. All other acres determined by TerraMatrix.
PEM: Persistent emergency wetland
PSS: Deciduous scrub/shrub wetland
PFO: Forested broad-leafed deciduous and needle-leafed evergreen wetlands
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-111
• Alternative F - 0.90 acres; and,
• Alternative G - 5,40 acres.
The tailings facility, in all action alternatives except Alternative F, would account for the greatest
permanent acreage disturbance to wetlands (2.46 to 2.52 acres). A total of 0.63 acres of
wetlands (0.57 acres in Starrem Creek drainage and 0.06 acres in Myers Creek valley) would be
covered or disturbed from construction of the Starrem Reservoir and associated intake facility.
Construction of the Starrem Reservoir would also temporarily eliminate about 2,200 feet of Starrem
Creek. This portion of the creek would return after decommissioning of the reservoir.
Indirect effects to the wetlands of Buckhorn Mountain could occur, as a result of the alteration
(reduction) in stream flows and ground water flows due to pit construction/dewatering, and surface
runoff at the mine site. The nine acre (C1B) wetland would experience a reduction in water inflow
in all alternatives due to decreases in flow from the Roosevelt adit. This decrease would be most
pronounced during the latter part of mining and until the mine area reached a new hydrologic
balance. The frog pond would have a reduction in the watershed area contributing to surface flow
under all alternatives (66% to 80% for Alternatives B, D, E, F, and 30% for Alternative C) due to
the interception of surface water flow off the north waste rock disposal areas. This reduction
would be most pronounced during operations and reclamation while the diversion ditches and
sediment ponds are operating and intercepting flows. The waste rock disposal area in Alternative
G would permanently cover the frog pond. Much, if not all, of this reduction, except in Alternative
G, would be eliminated after the diversion ditches are reclaimed.
Temporary inflow and storage reductions in wetlands adjacent to Myers Creek could occur in the
Myers drainage basin adjacent and downstream of the Starrem Reservoir due to interception and
diversion of waters in Myers and Starrem Creeks for the mine water supply.
The development of an underground mine would have fewer indirect impacts than an open pit due
to the amount of surface recharge area left after cessation and reclamation of operations; however,
underground workings could redirect the surface expression of the ground water recharge in
different directions than currently exist.
Sedimentation in area streams, from the Crown Jewel Project as well as other adjacent activities,
in conjunction with potential minor long-term reductions in Crown Jewel Project area stream flows,
could result in slight cumulative effects to wetland acreage and functions.
Waters of U.S.
Seeps and springs, perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands occur in locations throughout
the Crown Jewel Project area. As proposed, features of the Crown Jewel Project that would
directly impact Waters of the U.S. include the water storage and supply facilities, the tailings
disposal facility, the mine pit and the north waste rock disposal areas, access and haul roads, and a
construction materials borrow pit.
Impacts to springs, seeps, streams, and wetlands are displayed in Table S-17, Wetlands, Springs,
and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification, and Table S-18, Wetland and Stream
Direct Impacts.
Regulations
The federal government, through Executive Orders 11988 and 11900, has mandated that federal
agencies provide leadership for preserving floodplains and minimizing losses to wetlands. The
State of Washington (Executive Order 90-04, Shoreline Management Act - RCW 90.58, Water
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY PageS-112
Quality Standards - RCW 90.48/WAC 173.201 (a)) and Okanogan County (Growth Management
Critical Areas Ordinance) have also provided direction and/or regulations for protecting wetlands.
Impacts to wetlands are governed by the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which
requires permit approval for any dredge or fill alterations to waters of the U.S. including wetlands
under 404 jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines specifically require that
"no discharge of dredge or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as
the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences" (40 CFR
230.10(a)). Compliance with Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines is determined by the Corps of Engineers
and the EPA. The State of Washington participates in the Section 404 permit process by reviewing
the proposal to certify that it meets state aquatic protection regulations (Section 401 Water Quality
Certification) and may approve, deny, or condition issuance of the 404 permit.
4.11 AQUATIC HABITATS AND POPULATIONS
No short or long-term effects on fisheries resources or other aquatic organisms from the use of
cyanide are expected. Geochemical testing suggests that the majority of material to be placed in
the waste rock disposal areas would have a low potential to generate acid and toxic metals.
Therefore, minor or minimal impacts to water quality and aquatic resources are expected from
waste rock disposal, provided that the small percentage of potentially acid-generating water rock is
appropriately handled during placement and potential leaching of nitrates and other discharge from
waste rock is adequately monitored.
Short-term, local increases in turbidity and suspended sediments are likely to occur during initial
construction, road building/improvements, and earth-moving activities in the Marias and Nicholson
Creek drainages. Short-term increases in sediment yield could result in short-term losses of habitat.
Sediment yields would be reduced once construction was complete and all mitigation measures
were implemented depending on climatic conditions during Project and post-Project operations.
With proper drainage and detention structures, regulated by federal and state standards, the risk of
both short-term and long-term impacts to fisheries would be low for any of the action alternatives.
However, there could be short-term impacts due to increases in sediment levels in local stream
segments due to reclamation activities and road use.
Hydrologic processes in the headwater streams of the Buckhorn Mountain area are important to
maintaining water quality, water quantity, and timing of stream flow. Headwater streams also
have potential impacts on stream sediment and gravel storage and/or transport. And finally, the
headwater systems play a part in organic material recruitment and storage in the stream. Changes
in the hydrologic regime of headwater streams due to changes to infiltration rates,
evapotranspiration, snow accumulation, and snow melt, may result in higher winter and spring-
runoff flows and lower summer and fall stream flows.
An IFIM analysis was conducted to determine the habitat/flow relationship for the protection of
rainbow trout spawning in Myers Creek. The IFIM analysis recommended that a minimum instream
flow during the rainbow trout spawning period during the spring and early summer of the year be
12 cfs in Myers Creek as measured at the point of diversion into the Starrem reservoir. The IFIM
also determined that an appropriate flow for brook trout and rainbow trout winter habitat needs
would be 6 cfs as measured at the diversion point. As the seven day average temperature in
Myers Creek rises to or over 6°C (42.8°F) in the spring, the IFIM analysis recommended that an
interim minimum instream flow of 9 cfs would be appropriate to protect trout during the period
before the beginning of the rainbow trout spawning period. When the seven day running average
stream temperature of 8°C (46.4°F) was reached, the minimum instream flow would increase to
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-113
the 12 cfs level. These recommendations would be considered by WADOE when making decisions
on the water rights applications.
There is a possibility of cumulative impacts as a result of increased sedimentation from adjacent
timber harvest and mineral exploration activities. The extent of these impacts would be based on
the drainage and sediment control practices implemented in all activities, and specifically on the
Crown Jewel Project where it is planned for sediment to be captured in the detention ponds.
4.12 WILDLIFE
The six action alternatives would result in both short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife.
Proposed reclamation plans and mitigation measures would eventually restore wildlife habitat, but
not to the same quality or quantity that would be lost. The magnitude of the impact to wildlife
would be a function of the size and duration of habitat loss, changes in land use, disturbance and
noise and the risk of exposure to toxic substances.
The net adverse impact to wildlife (following reclamation and mitigation) would be greatest under
Alternative F and least under Alternative C. Alternative F would have substantial impacts due to
the duration of habitat loss (33 years), the duration of noise and other mining related disturbance
(33 years), and the lengthened risk of exposure to potential toxics (16 years). Alternative C would
have the least impact of all action alternatives due to the short project life (six years), and
impacting the smallest amount of habitat. Alternative E would impact the largest amount of habitat
(1,484 acres) followed closely by Alternative G (1,418 acres) and Alternative F (1,369 acres).
Alternative B impacts 1,277 acres, a lesser amount than Alternatives E, G, and F due primarily to
having steeper waste rock reclamation slopes which result in a smaller area impacted.
While some of the impacts would be permanent (e.g., the pit in most alternatives), others would be
reversible in some areas (e.g., loss of forest habitat). Impacts to wildlife would continue after
operations cease and for some time following revegetation when early succession cover types
(e.g., grass, shrub) prevail. Species preferring early successional cover types are expected to be
among the first colonizers of reclaimed slopes. However, species requiring mature forest and
associated components would be impacted until the structure and function of mature interior
forests are realized. All action alternatives have incremental negative impacts to sensitive species
and associated potential habitat for species likely to occur within the analysis area. Because
impacts are small or have been mitigated, the action alternatives may impact individuals or habitat
but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability of the
population or species.
4.13 NOISE
Modeling indicates that noise levels during the operational phase would be below the allowable
limits for residential areas set by WADOE. The noise levels are predicted based on Year 3 of the
Crown Jewel Project, during which time the production rate would be at its maximum, but during
which time the noise sources would not yet be naturally mitigated by the mine pit. Table S-19,
Comparison of Noise Impacts for All Alternatives, summarizes the modeled noise levels and
impacts for all alternatives.
The predicted noise levels are compared with the following criteria. At the facility boundary, the
noise levels must satisfy daytime, non-residential noise limits set by WADOE, and the nighttime
noise levels must comply with residential nighttime WADOE noise limits. At the residential areas
west of the mine, the noise increases above the nighttime background are compared with
guidelines set by EPA Region 10.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
1
I
(b
TABLE S-19, COMPARISON OF NOISE IMPACTS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
A - No Action
B
C
D
E
F
G
Impacts at Chesaw, Bolster and Pinechee
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled summertime nighttime noise at 39
dBA including background. This is lower
than WADOE nighttime limits and 0-5 dBA
above background; "Slight Impact" by EPA
criteria.
Modeled noise level is 41 dBA, 2 dBA higher
than Alternative B. This is less than the
WADOE nighttime noise limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower than
Alternative B. Daytime levels same as
Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Other Private Land
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled nighttime noise levels at all
parcels are less than 45 dBA. This is
less than the allowable WADOE
residential nighttime limit.
Modeled noise levels are comparable to
Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower
than Alternative B. Daytime levels
same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Public Land East of Project
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled noise level at the eastern
facility boundary is 59 dBA, which is
less than the 65 dBA allowable non-
residential limit.
Modeled noise level is 60 dBA, which is
slightly higher than Alternative B, but
less than the WADOE non-residential
noise limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower
than Alternative B. Daytime levels
same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
(0
<0
I
30
to
S3-
I
CO
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY PageS-115
The modeled noise levels at Chesaw are slightly above the existing background levels measured
during the quietest hours of the night during the winter. Therefore, the mining activities might be
slightly noticeable outdoors during the winter if the prevailing winds are from the east. However, it
is unlikely that the mining noise would be noticeable indoors unless the residents had their
windows open at night during the winter under windy conditions.
Blasting would occur only during daylight hours. The blast noise would dissipate quickly with
distance from the source, and it is expected to be relatively low at all areas outside the facility
boundary.
The construction and operational mining noise would probably not be audible at the developed
campgrounds south of the Crown Jewel Project site (e.g.. Lost Lake, Beth Lake, etc.), which are
over six miles from the site. Modeled noise levels, to the south of the mine site, are less than the
existing background levels for distances more than about four miles away.
4.14 RECREATION
Adverse effects on recreation resources would occur during the construction and operational phase
(less than ten years) except Alternative F (33 years) and would affect primarily dispersed
recreational activities within the primary study area. The Crown Jewel Project would diminish
recreational values in and immediately adjacent to the mine. Impacts from Crown Jewel Project
alternatives would comply with the "Roaded Modified" recreation opportunity spectrum established
by the Forest Service management prescriptions for the area. Direct, short-term impacts of all of
the alternatives would consist of the closure of numerous Forest Roads and the consequent
interruption of access throughout the Crown Jewel Project area, increased traffic on access roads,
and noise and visual impacts.
Alternatives C and D would have the fewest acres disturbed and inaccessible to the public for the
shortest time period, while Alternatives E and G would have the greatest number of acres
disturbed. Alternative F would have the Crown Jewel Project area inaccessible to the public for the
longest time period.
Estimated operational traffic would vary considerably between alternatives, ranging from an
estimated 89 trips per day under Alternative F to 160 trips under Alternative G assuming 75%
participation in busing. The proposed route for supply vehicles through Chesaw under Alternatives
C and G would minimize effects on the Beth and Beaver Lakes campgrounds over the other
alternatives, but would increase noise effects on residents of the Chesaw area. A primary concern
with Alternative F is the 33-year duration of the Crown Jewel Project which would extend the
impacts over a much longer period than the other alternatives.
The permanent, direct impacts of Alternatives B, E, and G would be the lowered summit of
Buckhorn Mountain, as well as other alterations to the area's visual characteristics. Hikers visiting
the summit of Mt. Bonaparte, Bodie Mountain, Graphite Mountain, and other peaks east of the
Crown Jewel Project would be able to see portions of the mine pit and waste rock disposal areas.
Alternative F (complete mine backfilling) would result in a slight increase in the height of Buckhorn
Mountain. Permanent direct effects of Alternatives C and D would consist of the potential
subsidence hazard over the underground workings and the pit in Alternative D. Alternatives B, D,
and G would result in a permanent lake in the final mine pit; the lake could become a recreation
resource but could also pose a safety hazard to recreationists.
Indirect impacts would consist of the potential for construction workers and job seekers to use
state or Forest Service campgrounds for housing, as well as potentially increased demands placed
on recreational facilities by Project-related population increases. Alternatives C and D would result
in the largest, long-term population increases of all of the alternatives due to the larger number of
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-116
employees and greater predicted non-local workforce. Alternative F is predicted to cause the
lowest population increase during operations, but would have a larger reclamation workforce than
other alternatives and operations which would last 23 years longer.
4.15 SCENIC RESOURCES
The scenic impact analysis is based on the premise that visitors to the National Forest prefer to see
the forest in a condition as close as possible to its natural state, and thus facility development,
such as the proposed Crown Jewel Project, should be as compatible as possible to the landscape's
natural form, line, color, and texture, consistent with other resource requirements of the forest. In
the case of Buckhorn Mountain, mining was designated as a potential resource use of the area in
the 1989 Okanogan National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan, and thus a certain
degree of changes to scenery is considered acceptable by the Forest Service to allow development
of the mining resource. The Forest Service has assigned a "maximum modification" scenic quality
objective for the Buckhorn Mountain area.
Major impacts would be actions that create a level of contrast with the adjacent natural landscape
that would not meet the "maximum modification" scenic quality objective, regardless of mitigation
and reclamation. Impacts to scenery of land owned by private individuals or other government
agencies are analyzed based on Forest Service scenic management objectives, since scenic
standards have not been adopted for these lands.
All of the action alternatives would result in general disturbance to the area from dust, lights, and
traffic, as well as construction of the topsoil stockpiles, waste rock disposal areas, borrow areas,
roads, support buildings, Project lighting, water supply system, and the power line. The new
section of power line to be constructed southeast of Chesaw would be the most visible of these
features, altering the view from the Oroville-Toroda Creek Road, Nealey, and Forest Road 3575-
125 viewpoints. Once mining and reclamation is completed and the Crown Jewel Project features
are removed, the public would again have access to the area. As these areas gradually revegetate
over time, contrasts in texture and color would be reduced.
Where the alternatives differ is primarily in the configuration or presence of the mine pit, the waste
rock disposal areas, and the tailings disposal area. Alternative C would not require the open pit,
but would require two quarries, one of which would be on the ridgeline. The only visible evidence
of Alternative C from outside the Crown Jewel Project area could be a moisture cloud in the winter
months resulting from exhaust fan air exiting the underground mine. Alternative D could also
create a moisture cloud associated with the underground mine, as well as long-term impacts from
the mine pit. Alternatives C and D may also result in surface subsidence above the underground
works. Alternatives B and E are similar in terms of impacts to scenery, with the greatest impacts
consisting of the view of the north waste area from Canada, the view of the south waste area from
Mt. Bonaparte, and the view of the mine pit and south waste area from Toroda Creek. In the long-
term. Alternative F would have the least impact to scenery, because the pit would be completely
backfilled, the summit would be re-established (albeit slightly higher), and there would be no
remaining waste rock disposal areas; likewise, the lighting impacts of Alternative F would be lower
due to the shorter work days. However, tripling the length of the Crown Jewel Project to 33 years
would extend the duration of the impacts, including views of the north waste area and mine pit.
Alternative G would have the least short-term impacts to scenery, because there would be no
south waste rock area, and the north waste rock area would be only slightly visible outside the
immediate Crown Jewel Project vicinity.
4.16 HERITAGE RESOURCES
All action alternatives would impact a minimum of four individual sites. Of these sites, only
features 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Gold Axe Camp (site #24-64) have been determined eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A Determination of Eligibility for many of the mining
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY PageS-117
properties within the Crown Jewel Project area has been reviewed by the Washington State Office
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP).
As recommended by that office, appropriate mitigation of proposed impacts to these four features
(all historic cabins) at site #24-64 is a Historical American Building Survey (HABS) recording or
equivalent. These features are considered as one site and not a historic district, nor are they a
component of a historic landscape.
Upon completing HABS recording for these features, moving of the cabins (as opposed to
destruction) for the purpose of adaptive re-use and/or interpretive and educational purposes is
additionally recommended. However, once moved, cabin rehabilitation should only be carried out in
accordance with the Secretary's Standard for Rehabilitation. Recommendations concerning NRHP-
eligible properties at site #24-64 also apply to all NRHP properties in the Crown Jewel Project area
which may be adversely impacted.
Additional historic mining-related properties would be removed or buried as a result of mining and
related Crown Jewel Project activity on Buckhorn Mountain, but none of these properties are
considered eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. There are two NRHP-eligible properties located along
the proposed Crown Jewel Project transmission line corridor from Oroville to the mine site, the Hee
Hee Stone (site #450K830) and a historic irrigation flume (site #24-72). The Hee Hee Stone
would be avoided by construction of the proposed transmission line, and the historic irrigation
flume would only be spanned by the line, therefore not physically affected.
There could be impacts to the utilization of the subsistence rights that the members of the Colville
Tribe currently exercise (e.g., hunting and gathering). The primary impact would be a result of
restricting access by fencing the Crown Jewel Project area and limiting vehicle access to other
areas through road closures for wildlife mitigation.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Effects to the existing transportation network would result from an increase in daily traffic to the
site. This projected increase would come from employee related traffic combined with supply and
material transport. The magnitude and duration of impacts associated with traffic or transportation
related activities would depend on the alternative selected.
Each action alternative scenario has been separated into three phases: construction, operations,
and reclamation. All action alternatives assume that the majority of the employees would reside
along the Tonasket -Oroville corridor and that busing would be provided from a location in or near
Oroville. Table S-20, Traffic Summary By Road, displays the projected traffic increases for each
affected road at the 75% busing level.
Construction Phase
All of the action alternatives are projected to have similar volumes of construction related traffic.
The Proponent has estimated that a peak number (250) of employees could be required for a short
period of time (a few weeks) and then the employee numbers would taper off until the operations
phase starts. Although fewer people could be employed, for calculation purposes, it has been
assumed that 250 employees would be transported over a 12 month period. This assumption is
very conservative, but it should also be recognized that this situation would occur at some time
during the year of construction. It has been assumed that most of the construction employees
would car pool to the Crown Jewel Project site.
Alternatives B, D, E, and F would route supplies through Wauconda to the site, while employees
are routed from Oroville. Alternatives C and G would route all traffic, employee and supply, from
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
240
Alternative B
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
3
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
1.9
11.2
1.9
1 6e/289w
18e/90w
3e/38w
17.4e/111.6w
19.6e/31.3w
3.3e/14.7w
305
108
41
6100
2160
820
305
108
41
Alternative C
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
305w
151w
41 w
117.8w
58. 3w
15.8w
305
151
41
6100
3020
820
Alternative D
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
3
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
9.9
11.2
1.9
1 6e/289w
18e/136w
3e/38w
Alternative E
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
3
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
9.9
11.2
1.9
16e/289w
183/90w
3e/38w
Alternative F
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
11
3
1.9
1.3
0.3
16
11
3
9.9
6.8
1.9
16e/289w
11e/78w
3e/50w
17.4e/111.6w
19.6e/52.5w
3.3e/14.7w
17.4e/111.6w
19.6e/34.7w
3.3e/14.7w
17.4e/111.6w
12e/30.1w
3.3e/19.ew
Alternative G
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
305w
160w
41 w
117.8w
61. 8w
15.8w
305
154
41
305
108
41
305
89
53
6100
3080
820
6100
2160
820
6100
1780
1060
305
160
41
6100
3200
820
305
151
41
305
154
41
305
108
41
305
89
53
305
160
41
>6100
>2160
>820
>6100
>3020
>820
>6100
>3080
>820
>6100
>2160
>820
>6100
>1780
>1060
>6100
>3200
>820
Notes: 1 . "e" represents the portion of County Road 9480 east of the intersection with County Road 4895, "w" is west of the intersection with County
Road 4895.
Traffic numbers represent expected and mitigated conditions.
ADT = average daily traffic.
to
to
SJ
CO
1
30
*
«•»
••*
CO
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY PageS-119
Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project. For all action alternatives, there would be some traffic
through Chesaw to the Starrem Reservoir site during its construction.
There would be an expected increase in the actual number of accidents per year, due to the volume
of traffic projected during this phase of the operation. However, the accident rate, based on
annual miles traveled on each road, could be lower than currently experienced due to the safety
and mitigation measures proposed.
Operations Phase
The action alternatives vary considerably between employees needed and the life span of the
operation. Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G vary from 89 to 160 vehicle trips per day. The
duration of effect varies from four to eight years, except for Alternative F which extends for 16
years.
There could be an increase in the number of accidents per year, due to the volume of traffic
projected during this phase. However, the increase would be much less than expected in the
construction phase.
Annual supply requirements would vary from 1,399 truck loads (Alternatives B, D, and E), 1,130
for Alternative C, 700 for Alternative F, and 591 loads in Alternative G. All action alternatives
would transport environmentally hazardous materials including sodium cyanide (except Alternative
G), chemicals/reagents, lime/cement, ammonium nitrate and fuel annually to the Crown Jewel
Project. Alternative G would require about 400 annual loads of ammonium nitrate and fuel, but no
sodium cyanide would be used in this scenario. The Proponent has indicated that most supplies
would be delivered Monday through Thursday.
Reclamation Phase
For reclamation, Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G are projected to have the same volume (41 ADT) of
associated traffic; employee, supply and miscellaneous visitors over a one year period. Alternative
F would require a larger work force for 16 years of reclamation with an associated 53 ADT.
Environmentally Hazardous Materials
There would be materials required for operation of the Crown Jewel Project that are considered
environmentally hazardous. Although numerous mitigation measures have been proposed to
reduce or eliminate an accident or spill of this type of material, it must be recognized that the
potential, however slight, remains.
4.18 LAND USE/RECLAMATION
In the long-term, successful reclamation would enable the area to be used much as it was before
the Crown Jewel Project. In the short-term, land could be used at a reduced capability. Buildings
at the site would be removed, and waste rock disposal and tailings areas would be reclaimed.
There would be topographic modifications to the Crown Jewel Project area following mining. Most
notable would be the final mine pit left open in Alternatives B, D, E, and G as well as surface
subsidence in the underground mining operations expected for Alternatives C and D. Land affected
by the open mine pit and surface subsidence would be lost in terms of their pre-mining land use.
Disturbance caused by the action alternatives varies from 415 acres (Alternative C) to 928 acres
(Alternative E). The Crown Jewel Project areas would experience short-term effects, but
reclamation would return most of the acreage to pre-mining uses and would not cause a substantial
long-term change in land use.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-120
The climate of the Crown Jewel Project area exhibits an annual precipitation rate of approximately
20 inches. Such a rate is sufficient to support a variety of adapted, commercially-available
vegetation species which can be planted to restore site productivity, create wildlife habitat, and
control soil erosion. The soils existing on site are inherently productive. The higher quality soil
materials would be salvaged prior to mining, stockpiled, and replaced over the disturbed areas to be
revegetated to provide a competent seedbed material. Proposed soil replacement depths are
adequate, in terms of water holding capacity, for the vegetation communities they are intended to
support. Analyses of waste rock, tailings, and subsoil materials over which salvaged soils would
be replaced indicate that there are no physical or chemical characteristics which would preclude
successful reclamation.
The reclamation and revegetation techniques proposed for use by the Proponent are comparatively
simplistic, commonly accepted techniques of successful application in the western states.
Techniques for overcoming problems associated with soil fertility, microbial populations, and
erosion are included in the Crown Jewel Project Reclamation Plan. Erosion and sediment control
features are proposed to address problems of this nature. Both interim and concurrent (segmental)
reclamation would be utilized to address overall site stability concerns. Revegetation test plots are
also proposed to test the applicability of a variety of reclamation techniques on waste rock and
tailings sub-base materials.
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The general study area for which impacts are assessed is defined generally to include all of
Okanogan and Ferry Counties, but with a smaller primary study area encompassing approximately
60% of the two county population. This primary study area covers northeastern Okanogan and
western Ferry County, extending south and west to encompass the cities of Omak and Okanogan,
north to the Canadian border, and east into the Republic and Curlew communities of Ferry County.
Whenever possible, effects are identified in quantitative or numerical terms (such as number of
jobs, housing units or school students). Some impacts (such as effects on social values) are more
difficult to evaluate numerically and so are described primarily in a qualitative or narrative manner.
All of the action alternatives would have socioeconomic effects. Table S-21, Socioeconomic
Assumptions for the Action Alternatives, Table S-22, Anticipated Population Increase, Table S-23,
Anticipated School Enrollment Affects, Table S-24, Anticipated Permanent Housing Demand, and
Table S-25, Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal Effects, present an overview of the expected effects to
the socioeconomic environment. However, statistical measures such as population, employment,
school enrollments and housing would change by less than 2% based on total (direct and indirect)
effects of the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Because of its shorter duration, greater levels of mine employment, and the need for a more skilled
employment pool, Alternative C could create a greater need for temporary worker housing through
the six year duration of mine construction, operation, and reclamation. Conversely, Alternative F
would create the least amount of major change in socioeconomic conditions due to the longer
duration of mining activity and lower levels of mining employment.
Many of the socioeconomic effects evaluated are directly related to the question of how many
workers are hired locally versus from outside the area. For purposes of this EIS, the term "local
hire" is intended to mean persons who lived in the study area of northeastern Okanogan County
and western Ferry County prior to hiring and who did not move into the study area in anticipation
of being hired at the Crown Jewel Project.
Experience with other comparable mine projects suggests that in some situations the proportion of
non-local hires could be greater than what has been indicated by the Proponent, particularly in the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
(6
I
(6
r>
TABLE S-21, SOCIOECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
B
c
Years of Operation
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Total
1
8
1
10
1
4
1
6
D
E
F
G
1
6
1
8
1
8
1
10
1
16
16
33
1
8
1
10
Employment (FTE)
Construction
Operation
Reclamation (Avg.)
145
144
50
Percent of Local Employment
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
40%
80%
95%
145
225
50
145
225
50
25%
40%
95%
30%
50%
95%
145
144
50
40%
80%
95%
145
125
75
40%
80%
95%
Annual Wage Levels
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
$50,800
$40,8OO
$40,800
$50,800
$40,200
$40,200
$ 50,800
$40,200
$40,200
$50,800
$40,800
$40,800
$50,8OO
$41,7OO
$41,700
145
210
50
40%
80%
95%
$50,8OO
$38,9OO
$38,900
Capital Expenditures
Construction
Reclamation
$47,800,000
$0
$89,800,000
$0
$78,600,000
$ 0
$47,800,000
$0
$47,800,000
$20,200,000
$58,800,000
$0
Annual Expenditures
Mine Operation Budget
Mine Operation Purchases
Reclamation Purchases
Assessed Valuation
Percent of Option B
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$67,400,000
100%
$39,400,000
$26,100,000
$ 3,000,000
$40,400,000
60%
$39,400,000
$26,100,000
$ 3,000,000
$43,900,000
80%
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$59,200,000
88%
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$67,400,000
100%
$37,700,000
$24,400,000
$ 3,000,000
$35,000,000
52%
Note: FTE indicates full-time equivalent average annual employment.
Source: TerraMatrix Inc., Chapter, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and information provided by the Proponent.
Assessed valuation is estimated by E.D. Hovee & Company based on the amount of recoverable gold resource of each
alternative when compared to the Proposed action (Alternative B).
5°
<0
SJ
CO
CO
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-122
TABLE S-22, ANTICIPATED POPULATION INCREASE
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
116
28
144
144
28
172
136
28
164
116
28
144
116
28
144
116
28
144
Operation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
81
76
157
379
118
497
315
118
433
81
76
157
70
70
140
118
112
230
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
6
28
34
Note: Any population effect associated w
and reclamation phases of mine act
assumptions contained in the EIS a
and are therefore subject to- change
assumptions.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
6
28
34
6
28
34
6
28
34
11
42
53
6
28
34
ith Alternative A occurs prior to the construction, operation
ivity. Population projections are estimates based on
nd Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report,
to the degree that actual conditions vary from forecast
TABLE S-23. ANTICIPATED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT EFFECTS
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
16
8
24
19
7
26
19
8
27
16
8
24
16
8
24
16
8
24
Operations Phase
direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
21
19
40
100
31
131
83
31
114
21
19
40
19
19
38
31
29
60
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
2
7
9
2
7
9
2
7
9
2
7
9
3
11
14
2
7
9
Note: Enrollment associated with Alternative A occurs prior to mine-related activities noted in
this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
PageS-123
TABLE S-24, ANTICIPATED PERMANENT HOUSING DEMAND
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
B
11
10
21
C
D
E
F
G
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
Operations Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
29
27
56
135
42
177
112
42
154
29
27
56
25
25
50
42
40
82
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
2
10
12
2
10
12
2
10
12
2
10
12
4
15
19
2
10
12
Note: Construction phase demand for permanent housing is calculated on the basis of
operations employees only. Construction workers would generate an additional temporary
housing need for a period of up to one year. Housing demand related to Alternative A
would occur prior to mine construction and subsequent activities noted by this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
TABLE S-25, ANTICIPATED MULTI-YEAR FISCAL EFFECTS
Alternative
A
B
Direct Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/(Loss)
Indirect Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/ILoss)
$0
$0
$0
.
$0
$0
$0
$23,300,000
$ 3,200,000
* 20, 100,000
C
$21,600,000
$ 7,300,000
$14,300,000
D
E
F
Q
$28,400,000
$ 9,000,000
$19,400,000
$22,400,000
$ 3,200,000
$19,200,000
$47,100,000
$ 6,200,000
$40,900,000
$25,600,000
$ 4,600,000
$21,000,000
$12,800,000
$ 1,500,000
$11,300,000
Total Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/ILoss)
$0
$0
$0
$36, 10O.OOO
$ 4,700,OOO
$31,400,00
$12,400,000
$ 3,400,000
$ 9,000,000
$34,000,000
$10,700,000
$23,300,000
$15,900,000
$ 4,200,000
$11,700,000
$44,300,000
$13.200,000
$31,100,000
Note: Fiscal effects are aggregated over the entire multi-year period encompas
Any fiscal effects associated with Alternative A occur prior to mine relat
reclamation activities.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a. A more detailed description of the impact methodol
Socioeconomic Environment Background Report (1996 Update) Crown J<
$12,400,000
$ 1,500,000
$10,900,OOO
$34,800,000
$ 4,700,OOO
$30,100,000
$25,900,000
$ 2,900,000
$23,000,000
$73,000,000
$ 9,100,000
$63,900,000
$15,100,000
$ 2,200,000
$21,900,000
$40,700,000
$ 6,800,000
$33,900,000
sing construction, operation, and reclamation activities
ed construction, operation and post-operation
ogy is provided by E.D. Hovee & Company, Affected
>wel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
SUMMARY
Page S-124
absence of active efforts to encourage local hiring. The Proponent has indicated a commitment to
achieve stated local hire targets, consistent with its operating experience elsewhere in the U.S.
A greater proportion of non-local hires would increase the total effect on study area employment,
incomes, development and government revenues. However, non-local hires would also generate
added community and public service expense, limit the degree to which existing local residents
benefit, and could be more disruptive to existing social values of the area.
TABLE S-26, ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Fuel (gal)
Annual
Total
Electricity (Kwh)
Annual
Total
Alternative
A
< 1 ,000
< 1 ,000
Not
Applicable
B
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
504^million
C
0.7 million
2.8 million
63 million
252 million
D
1 million
5.8 million
63 million
378 million
E
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
504 million
F
0.6 million
19 million
42 million
672 million
G
2.4 million
19 million
63 million
504 million
4.20 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CONSERVATION
The principle energy products used at the Crown Jewel Project would be petroleum (non-
renewable) for motor vehicles and electricity for mining equipment and ore processing. The
petroleum products would consist primarily of diesel fuel and gasoline. The estimated fuel
consumption would vary by alternative, based on equipment requirements. Annual energy
consumption during operation varies by alternative as shown on Table S-26, Energy Consumption.
Electrical power for the Crown Jewel Project facilities and water supply system would be provided
through the local Okanogan County PUD via an overhead 115 kv transmission line. As with fuel,
the annual electricity requirements would vary with specific alternatives.
Fuel consumption by the mobile mining equipment would be a major energy requirement of non-
renewable energy products. Regular maintenance for all vehicles and mining equipment would be
an opportunity for energy conservation. In addition, the proposed employee busing/van pooling
would further reduce fuel consumption.
4.21 MINING ECONOMICS
The evaluation of a mining project is a complex and detailed activity. It involves the interaction of
mineral sciences and engineering with finance and economics in the analysis of whether a project is
economically viable to shareholders and investors.
A pre-feasibility economic comparison of the action alternatives was performed in 1995 in order to
assess general feasibility and relative economics. Assuming a minimum after-tax rate of return of
15%, an alternative may be considered economically feasible if, for the Total Project and Primary
Partner, a positive NPV is returned.
Based upon the above criterion. Alternatives B, C, D, and E are potentially feasible projects, while
Alternatives F and G, which return 0% or negative returns, are not.
The Total Project NPV of Alternative E would return about 87% of that projected for Alternative B,
while Alternatives C and D return 65% and 73%, respectively. Looking at Primary Partner NPV,
Alternative E returns about 89% of Alternative B's value, while Alternatives D and C return 41 %
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-125
and 52% respectively, to the Proponent. Changes in the time order in which higher grade ores are
produced in Alternative E is the main reason for its reduced NPV compared to Alternative B.
Reduced NPV of Alternatives C and D is due to the increased cost of underground mining. Ore cut-
off grades were increased in these alternatives to compensate for the added costs. Total minable
gold was therefore reduced to 1.36 and 1.52 million ounces, respectively, compared with 1.57 for
Alternative B.
The failure of Alternative F is attributed to the increased cost associated with the reduced (less
efficient) production rate, the large $101 million end-of-mine pit backfill cost, and the single north
waste rock disposal area. The single greatest factor in the failure of Alternative G is the reduced
recovery of gold (45%) using the flotation processing methods.
4.22 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS
There are an infinite number of accident and spill scenarios that could be developed for a project
like the Crown Jewel Project. Analysis of such scenarios can include varying levels of complexity
and portray a variety of results. A reasonable assessment of risk from potential accidents and
spills was conducted and analyzed in perspective to everyday risk.
In the analysis conducted, special care was taken to distinguish between a predicted effect and a
potential effect or risk. Predicted effects are specifically identified as such, and described in terms
of magnitude and duration. These are the effects likely (high probability) to occur.
Effects or risks, that are not predicted but which have a potential to occur, have been selected and
presented in the following discussions. These potential effects are recognized and described to
ensure that reasonable steps are taken to further minimize them. Potential effects or risks are not
predicted to occur and are not approved or sanctioned by the agencies.
The following categories/items were selected for analysis but did not predict numerical probabilities
for an accident or spill event, but instead looked at the type and relative magnitude of impacts that
could result.
• Water Reservoir Rupture;
• Tailings Dam Failure;
• Transportation Spill;
• Accident/Spill in the Mill;
• Leak in the Tailings Facility;
• Well Depletion; and,
• Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to Explosives Handling.
Additional discussion for the following three categories (water reservoir rupture, tailings dam
failure, and transportation spill) are included in this Summary in Section 4.22.1, Water Reservoir
Rupture, Section 4.22.2, Tailings Dam Failure, and Section 4.22.3, Transportation Spill.
4.22.1 Water Reservoir Rupture
This event could be initiated by a catastrophic event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a design flaw, or
other causes which could result in severe structural damage to the embankment causing leakage
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-126
from the reservoir. The leak causes a portion of the embankment to collapse releasing several
million gallons of water into the Myers Creek drainage. This scenario has a very remote possibility
of happening.
The impacts would include damage of the pumping station, flooding of the ranching and housing
structures immediately downstream, erosion and reconfiguration of the stream channels,
destruction of wetlands and riparian areas, and alteration of aquatic habitats. Further downstream,
the level and velocity of the released water would dissipate as the valley widens. The water would
eventually be absorbed into the Kettle River system with little further effect.
4.22.2 Tailings Dam Failure
Again, this event could be initiated by a catastrophic event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a design flaw,
or other causes which could result in severe structural damage to the embankment causing a
breach or break of the embankment.
Two modes of failure were analyzed for the proposed tailings facility:
1) earthquake induced embankment failure (flow slide failure); and,
2) dam breach by overtopping.
These scenarios have an extremely remote possibility of happening.
Earthquake Induced Failure
The analysis was conducted using a Maximum Creditable Earthquake (MCE) with a magnitude of
6.0. The results of the analysis indicate that the embankment would not fail and would have a
factor of safety greater than 1.3 during construction and 1.5 thereafter.
More extreme events could cause flow slide failure (mud slide) resulting from embankment
collapse, which could release the entire tailings deposit, which is conservatively assumed to be in a
fluid state. Initial analysis of this scenario shows that failure of the primary embankment could
flow 2.6 miles down Marias Creek and failure of the secondary embankment would flow 300 feet
down Nicholson Creek.
Dam Breach by Overtopping
This is an erosional failure which could be caused by overfilling. This scenario would occur only on
the secondary embankment, Nicholson drainage. The breaching occurs at the completion of
placing the total 9.1 million tons of tailings. This results in the exposure of maximum surface area.
This analysis was conducted using the computer program BREACH developed by D.L. Fread
(1988). Twice the predicted runoff volume from a 72 hour (10,000 year) storm event was
assumed. The impoundment at this stage would contain a supernatant pond amounting to about
360 acre feet at the crest level of the secondary embankment. This volume is more than twice the
required design storage volume. This is an extremely unlikely scenario since it in effect assumes
that more than two design storm events follow each other (in excess of 20 inches of rain in less
than six days).
Analysis of the tailings material that would settle below the supernatant pond showed that this
material would be very unlikely to join the breach flow. The depth of the of breaching was
therefore assumed to stop four feet into the tailings.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-127
A dam break analysis was conducted in conjunction to predict the dam-break wave formation and
the downstream progression, using the computer model DAMBRK developed by the National
Weather Service. The analysis was performed along the 6.5 miles of Nicholson Creek downstream
to the junction with Toroda Creek.
The magnitude of the impacts to vegetation, wildlife, aquatic life, and personal property is difficult
to predict other than it is realized that environmental and property destruction would occur all along
the 6.5 miles of Nicholson Creek downstream to the confluence with Toroda Creek and diminish as
the valley widens at Toroda Creek. Within the flow slide area, vegetation, wetlands, and aquatic
habitats would be destroyed. Based on the leach test conducted on the tailings solids, there would
be no anticipated toxic impacts, only the inundation of very fine-grained material within the slide
zone. The impacts would remain until cleanup and restoration is completed.
4.22.3 Transportation Spill
The risk of accidental spills during transportation is related directly to the number of miles that the
materials are transported and the safety measures that are employed by the transporter.
Approximately 20 miles of roads in the proposed transportation network are proximal to streams.
The impact from a transport-related spill near the proposed mine would depend on a number of
conditions including:
• Accident severity and volume of spill;
• Integrity of the transport containers;
• Chemical/physical properties of the material being transported;
• Clean-up response time and effectiveness;
• Weather conditions;
• Local soil and vegetation types;
• Proximity of accident to a stream; and,
• Volume of receiving water body.
Materials in solid form would generally be less mobile in the event of a spill than liquids and easier
to clean up. Assuming a sufficiently rapid and effective response, solid materials would be less
likely than liquids to impact surface waters, unless spilled directly into a stream or pond.
The types of environmentally hazardous material that would be transported have been categorized
as follows:
• Sodium Cyanide;
• Explosives (ammonium nitrate);
• Chemicals and Reagents;
• Cement/Lime; and,
• Fuels.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-128
Transportation spills of the materials are not predicted to occur due to the specific nature of each
and the mitigative measures that would be employed.
4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
Irreversible resource commitments are those that cannot be reversed (loss of future options),
except perhaps in the extreme long-term. It relates primarily to nonrenewable resources, such as
minerals or cultural resources or those resources that are renewable only over long periods of time,
such as old-growth forest. A mining operation removes minerals from the ground; this results in an
irreversible loss of the mineral resource.
Irretrievable resource commitments are those that are lost for a period of time. Examples are: the
loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources, such as the lost of timber production and
harvest until the Crown Jewel Project site is reclaimed and revegetation success is achieved.
Use of land in the Crown Jewel Project area would displace existing land uses on a short-term
basis. Existing grazing, timber, wildlife habitat, and recreation uses would be disrupted or
eliminated during the estimated life-of-mine and for a period thereafter. With reclamation of the
disturbed lands, land uses could essentially return to current uses and levels of use or even be
enhanced, but this may take a long period of time for some resources such as mature wildlife
habitat.
4.23.1 Irreversible Resource Commitment
The irreversible commitment of resources would include the consumption of non-renewable energy
or materials, such as diesel fuel and gasoline, effects to topography, mineral resources, and cultural
resources.
The topography would be permanently altered by the creation of an open pit and the construction
of waste rock disposal areas and a tailings facility. Although most of these changes would blend
with the landscape following completion of reclamation, the pit highwalls would remain apparent in
the landscape in Alternatives B, D, E, and G. Surface subsidence would persist following
Alternatives C and D. Alternative F would result in the top of Buckhorn Mountain being slightly
higher than original.
Recent reports suggest that to replace the ecosystem of an old-growth western forest might take
180 to 500 years. It is suggested that to create a new forest stand that would provide SIT cover
for deer might take 100 to 150 years. Given the long-term nature of the effects, clear-cutting an
old-growth forest essentially becomes an irreversible commitment of resources. Harvest of SIT
cover is a long-term irretrievable commitment of resources.
Fossil fuels used during the operation and transportation phases of the Crown Jewel Project would
result in irreversible commitments.
The mining of the Crown Jewel Project ore deposit would be an irreversible use of a precious
metals reserve. On the other hand, the extraction and processing of the gold would make this
resource available for use by society.
Any soil or subsoil materials not salvaged prior to disturbance at the pit site or covered by waste
rock or tailings material would result in an irreversible commitment.
Four cultural sites, in the area of the proposed mine pit, would be lost; however, research values
would be recovered prior to the physical loss.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-129
4.23.2 Irretrievable Resource Commitments
Timber and other vegetation would be removed in areas of proposed facilities. Once this timber is
removed, any future harvest would be delayed for many decades.
Proposed mining activity would displace wildlife within the direct area of disturbance (e.g. loss of
habitat) and some wildlife within the larger core area (e.g. reduced habitat effectiveness due to
noise). These effects would likely cause a reduction in wildlife population. Reclamation plans and
mitigation measures would eventually restore wildlife habitat, but not the same quality and quantity
that would be lost.
Populations of sensitive plants could be irreversibly and irretrievably affected by the placement of
mine facilities.
There would be a consumption of water resources, both for the life of the Crown Jewel Project and
from changes caused by the Project such as pit lake evaporation.
Recreation opportunities would be restricted within the Crown Jewel Project area during the short-
term.
Partial or complete backfill of the open pit could result in an irretrievable loss as possible future
gold reserves would be covered.
4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
There are unavoidable impacts which could occur as a result of implementing an action alternative.
Some of these effects would be short-term, while others could be long-term. These unavoidable
effects could include:
• The generation of fugitive dust (short-term);
• The loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat (short and long-term);
• The destruction of cultural resources (long-term);
• The consumption of water resources (short-term);
• The permanent alteration of the topography (long-term);
• The increased demand on public services and utilities (short-term);
• The hydrologic balance on Buckhorn Mountain would be changed with resulting flow changes in
Gold, Bolster, Marias, Nicholson, Toroda and Myers Creeks (long-term);
• Loss of wetlands, springs and seeps and changed functions and values of wetlands (short and
long-term);
• Increases in noise levels which would effect human aesthetics and wildlife use and
effectiveness (short-term);
• Increased road traffic (short-term);
• Soil productivity (long-term);
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-130
• Timber production (short and long-term); and,
• Loss of sensitive plants (long-term).
4.25 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Short-term uses are those that generally occur on a year to year basis. Examples are wildlife and
livestock use of forage, timber management, other wood harvesting, recreation, and uses of the
water resource. Long-term productivity is the capability of the land to provide resources, both
market and non-market, for future generations.
Relationships between short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity occur in all
action alternatives. Short-term uses such as mining (vegetation removal) may be said to represent
irretrievable commitments of resources. As an example: The removal of timber and vegetation
from the facility sites certainly prevents the vegetation from serving as forage for livestock or as
hiding cover for wildlife for a certain period of time. However, after a period of time, which would
vary from site to site based on reclamation objectives, trees and other vegetation would again re-
establish and serve the desired purpose. This occurs because basic long-term productivity was not
destroyed by the short-term use; therefore, no irreversible damage occurred.
Project operations would be short-term use, with mining and initial reclamation expected to last
from 6 to 33 years. The short-term use of the Crown Jewel Project area is to recover as much
gold as is economically feasible. The amount of area disturbance needed to recover this gold varies
by alternative, 415 to 928 acres.
Long-term impacts to site productivity from roads, mining, and soil disturbance are discussed
previously in this chapter under the individual resource areas. In addition, the alteration of
ecological systems by mining and related activities would impact nutrient storage and cycling
processes. While the replacement of older stands with managed stands may increase the quality
and quantity of usable timber produced, care must be taken to insure that a long-term reduction in
site quality does not result from the mine operations.
Long-term productivity refers to the basic capability of the land to produce according to the desired
future levels (e.g., timber, wildlife habitat, water quality). Long-term productivity would depend on
the reclamation measures applied, the ability to retain soil productivity, and the desired long-term
management objectives. Timber production and mature growth wildlife habitat would be lost for
about 100 years within the Crown Jewel Project disturbance areas.
In addition to site conditions, the contribution of mature and old-growth forest habitats in providing
for a unique and diverse mix of species is reduced through removal of standing timber and intensive
management of the site. Timber production and mature growth wildlife habitat would be lost for
about 100 years within the area of physical disturbance. Wildlife habitat also would be lost within
the area affected by noise impacts for the duration of mining.
Any impacts on fish and wildlife habitat due to sedimentation and the introduction of toxics into
the environment can have both short and long-term impacts on these habitats, and to populations
of fish and wildlife species.
As described previously, the short-term benefits of mining gold would have long-term impacts on
scenic values within the Crown Jewel Project area and on several long-distance views from public
roads and other mountain peaks. Such changes in scenic resources may discourage those visitors
expecting a natural environment. However, the formation of a lake in the pit after mining is
completed, which is proposed under some alternatives, may attract other types of visitors to the
area.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-131
All of the action alternatives result in short-term uses which irretrievably commit certain resources,
specifically timber production and various levels of wildlife habitat. The relative amount of area
that would experience short-term uses (wildlife analysis area versus disturbed area) varies from
0.6% to 1.3%. The short-term use would affect 4% to 8.5% of the area, using the wildlife core
area as a basis for comparison.
4.26 RESERVATION OF PROJECT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
SEPA rules (WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii)) require that an EIS discuss the benefits and disadvantages
of reserving for some future time the implementation of the proposal, as compared with possible
approval at this time.
The benefits of reserving the implementation of the Crown Jewel Project for some future time
would include:
• Postponing environmental effects addressed in the EIS (i.e., service demands on the
socioeconomic infrastructure);
• Temporarily retaining the current land use of livestock grazing, aquatic resource environments,
wildlife habitat, timber production, and miscellaneous recreational activities such as hunting and
hiking;
• Possibly reducing the environmental effects (i.e., land disturbance, water use, and chemical use)
due to improved extraction technologies that would improve resource recovery;
• Possibly reducing or minimizing environmental effects caused by the proposal due to potential
future advances in reclamation and environmental control technologies;
• Increasing environmental protection due to potential future increased environmental regulations
which affect mining activities; and,
• Retaining the gold deposit as a potential future natural resource.
The disadvantages of reserving the implementation of the Crown Jewel Project for some future
time would include:
• Decreasing environmental protection due to potential future reduced environmental regulations
which affect mining activities;
• Increasing the cumulative environmental effects associated with the urban environment due to
increased growth and an increased urban environment;
• Increasing the cumulative environmental effects due to increased growth and increased
activities in the area which affect the elements of the environment; and,
• Eliminating the ability to implement the Crown Jewel Project or increasing the environmental
and economic cost due to the depletion of energy resources.
The two items listed below could be considered as environmental advantages and/or
disadvantages, because they involve changes which affect both impacts (i.e., increased service
demands) and associated mitigation (i.e., jobs and tax revenue) identified in the EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-132
• Postponing new job creation and taxes to be generated from the proposal and postponing
increased service or infrastructure needs (i.e., road improvements, police, school student
capacity); and,
• Creating possibly fewer jobs given some technological extraction or mining advances and
creating fewer service demands (than with the current proposal) on the socioeconomic
infrastructure.
4.27 SPECIALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES
4.27.1 Floodplains and Wetlands
All of the action alternatives would adversely affect wetland areas. No impacts to designated
floodplains are projected. These effects on wetland areas are described in Section 4.10, Wetlands.
The Crown Jewel Project would require a Corps of Engineers 404 permit due to the impacts on
wetlands. The 404 permit would require compensatory mitigation for the Projects effects on
wetlands.
Compliance with the Clean Water Act would be ensured through WADOE permit approvals and the
Record of Decision prepared by the Corps of Engineers for permits under their jurisdiction.
4.27.2 Social Groups
Alternatives that create the most economic benefit in terms of local jobs would be most beneficial
to women, Native Americans, and other minorities. There are no impact differences between
alternatives on the civil liberties of any American Citizen.
There would be impacts to the utilization of the subsistence rights that the members of the Colville
Tribe currently exercise (e.g., hunting and gathering). The basic impact would be as a result of
fencing off the Crown Jewel Project area to public access and limiting vehicle access to other areas
through road closures for wildlife mitigation and from the potential patenting of the land.
4.27.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
There would be no effects on Threatened or Endangered Species that would effect their viability.
The effects on these species are analyzed in Section 4.12, Wildlife, and in the Biological
Evaluations and Assessments on file at the Tonasket Ranger District (Forest Service) for wildlife,
aquatic habitats, and plants.
4.27.4 Prime Range Land, Farm Land, and Forest Land
The alternatives considered are in compliance with the Federal Regulations for prime land. Most of
the lands in the Crown Jewel Project area do not qualify as "prime" forest land, although there may
be isolated pockets of forest land that do meet the definition because growth rates may exceed 85
cubic feet per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment. The Crown Jewel Project
area does not contain any prime range land or farm land. In each alternative, Federal and State
lands would be managed with appropriate sensitivity to the effects on adjacent lands.
4.27.5 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Alternatives
With relation to national and global petroleum reserves, the energy consumption associated with
the individual alternatives, as well as the differences between alternatives, is not significant.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 SUMMARY Page S-133
4.27.6 Heritage Resources
All area of proposed ground disturbing activities have been inventoried for cultural resources.
Effects are disclosed in Section 4.16, Heritage Resources.
4.27.7 Conflicts Between Proposed Action and Other Federal, State and Local Plans,
Policies and Controls
Air Quality. Burning proposed under the action alternatives would comply with state and federal air
quality regulations. Burning of clearing slash would be performed under all action alternatives.
This would be regulated by the WADNR smoke management guidelines.
American Indian Treaty Rights. None of the alternative would conflict with treaty provisions.
Portions of the former North Half of the Colville Confederated Tribes Reservation would not be
available for a period of time during operations and reclamation. This would not effect their
subsistence rights under the treaty.
Heritage Resources. All areas of proposed ground-disturbing activities on Federal lands have been
inventoried for cultural resources. The Crown Jewel Project would comply with all aspects of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
Threatened and Endangered Species. The effects on threatened and endangered species has been
analyzed. In compliance with the Endangered Species Act, consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has been completed.
Water Quality. The Crown Jewel Project has the potential to adversely effect water quality. To
minimize the potential to effect water quality Best Management Practices and several Washington
State Water Quality permits (such as National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems
(NPDES)/State Waste Discharge Permit and Construction Activities Stormwater General Permit)
would be required prior to the commencement of construction.
4.27.8 Compliance With Applicable Laws
The Crown Jewel Project, as identified in the final EIS, would comply with all applicable laws
including but not limited to the National Environmental Policy Act; National Forest Management
Act; Federal Land Policy and Management Act; General Mining Law of 1872, as amended; Clean
Air Act; Endangered Species Act; Migratory Bird Treaty Act; National Materials and Minerals Policy,
Research and Development Act; National Historic Preservation Act, as amended; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; and
Executive Order 11990 on Wetlands. The Crown Jewel Project is consistent with the amended
Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Inland Native Fish
Strategy, and is in conformance with the approved BLM Spokane Resource Management Plan, as
amended December 1992.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Crown Jewel Mine FEIS Errata #2
(Errata #1 was included in the published Record of Decision)
The following is a list of errata for the Crown Jewel Mine Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Record of Decision and Summary.
ROD, page ROD-12, Table ROD-4, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:
Change "Washington Department of Energy" to "Washington Department of Ecology."
Reason: Error.
ROD, page ROD-23, Issue: Hazardous Chemicals/Health/Safety. Change first sentence
to read: "The public and the environment will be protected from cyanide and other
hazardous chemicals and the potential for hazardous materials spills will be
minimized by a number of mitigation measures."
Reason: Unclear wording due to incorrect grammar.
Summary, page S-5, Table S-l, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:
Change "Washington Department of Energy" to "Washington Department of Ecology."
Reason: Error.
Summary, page S-81, Table S-12, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue: Under
"Air Quality", Changes in visibility screening parameters, "(Operation Phase)"
should be added since this was the phase modeled.
Reason: Error of omission.
«
Summary, page S-85, Table S-12, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue: Under
"Decreases in area stream flows at average annual precipitation of 20 inches
(during operations)" for Alternative C, all numbers should be preceded by a "less
than" (<) symbol.
Reason: Error of omission.
Summary, page S-112, Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations: Add the following
paragraph, "Water discharging from the open pit may exceed some Aquatic Life
Criteria (Section 4.7, Surface Water). Should monitoring detect such exceedences,
response strategies identifying corrective actions are described in Section
2.12.13.5, Pit Lake. Also described in that section are, financial security
requirements for water treatment. Treatment is expected to alleviate potential
impacts on aquatic habitats and resources. Potential impacts to fisheries of
untreated pit discharge is described in Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Biological Evaluation."
Reason: Section 4.7, Surface Water, references section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and
Populations, for discussion of effects of fish from pit water quality
exceedences.
Summary, page S-118, Table S-20, Traffic Summary by Road: Under County Road 9495, °-s
Increase, Alternative B, Construction, the number should be changed from "1.9" to
"9.9".
Reason: Correct typographical error.
-------
FEIS, page 1-7, Table 1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:
Change "Washington Department of Energy" to "Washington Department of Ecology."
Reason: Error
FEIS, page 2-124, Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake, First Paragraph: Change last two lines
to read: "...131.36), which consider natural water quality background levels."
Reason: Misplaced end of parenthesis.
FEIS, page 2-156, Table 2.IS, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue: Under
"Air Quality", Changes in visibility screening parameters, "(Operation Phase)"
should be added since this was the phase modeled.
Reason: Error of omission.
FEIS, page 2-160, Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue: Under
"Decreases in area stream flows at average annual precipitation of 20 inches
(during operations)" for Alternative C, all numbers should be preceded by a "less
than" (<) symbol.
Reason: Error of omission.
FEIS, page 3-129, Section 3.15.4, Recreation Activities, first paragraph: Change the
last line to read: "Report card returns from 1991 tribal North Half deer tags for
all of Game Management Unit (GMU) 206 enumerated 39 deer harvested. Based on these
sample returns, tribal projected harvest for GMU 206, which includes the project
area, in 1991 was 219 animals."
Reason:' Error in interpretation of data provided.
FEIS, page 3-130, Section 3.15.4, Recreation Activities: Change the last sentence in
paragraph 3 to read, "US Geological Survey mapping records show that the mountain
ranks as the 950th highest peak in Washington."
Reason: The Buckhorn Mountain listed as the 106th highest peak in Fry (1992) is
not the peak at the proposed mine site but is apparently another peak of the
same name in the Olympic Mountains of Western Washington.
FEIS, page 3-146, Section 3.18.3, Project Access Routes: Drop the third complete
Paragraph:
Reason: This statement was inadvertently carried forward from the DEIS. During
the draft EIS development process, Okanogan County had plans to ask for
funding from the State and Federal governments to reconstruct County Road
9495. The County dropped these plans in favor of other routes having higher
priority for this funding. As explained in both the DEIS and FEIS
reconstruction was not related to the proposed Crown Jewel Mine operation.
FEIS, page 3-185, Figure 3.3.2, Location of Drill Holes Used for Geochemical
Testing: Change drill hole designation "451" to D451" and "D109" to "109".
Reason: Typographical errors.
FEIS, page 3-186, Figure 3.3.3, Waste Rocks Exposed in Final Pit Walls (Alternative B &
G): Drill hole designations D112, 223, 224, D27, 306, 284, 459, and 348 (from
bottom to top! should not appear on this figure. Change drill hole designation
"451" to "D451".
-------
Reason: Pit wall samples did not come from these holes and typographical error.
FEIS, page 4-105, Section 4.10.12, Location and Description of Project Components
Affecting Waters of the United States: Only the first three paragraphs under this
subsection belong here. Move everything, including and after the paragraph that
begins with "Because no final decisions have been made...", to the end of Section
4.10.13, Mitigation.
Reason: Misplaced text.
FEIS, page 4-107, Section 4.10.13, Mitigation, Last Paragraph: Change "2)" to read:
"2) in late summer, the frog pond would be monitored and augmented to prevent it
from dropping below an agreed upon water elevation.".
Reason: Clarification.
FEIS, page 4-111, Section 4.11.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Water
Quality: Add the following paragraph, "Water discharging from the open pit may
exceed some Aquatic Life Criteria (Section 4.7, Surface Water). Should monitoring
detect such exceedences, response strategies identifying corrective actions are
described in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake. Also described in that section are
financial security requirements for water treatment. Treatment is expected to
alleviate potential impacts on aquatic habitats and resources. Potential impacts
to fisheries of untreated pit discharge is described in Appendix I, Fisheries and
Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation."
Reason: FEIS Section 4.7, Surface Water, page 4-72 references Section 4.11,
Aquatic Habitats and Populations, for discussion of effects of potentially
poor quality pit water discharge.
FEIS, page 4-189, Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary by Road: Under County Road 9495, %
Increase, Alternative B, Construction, the number should be changed from "1.9" to
"9.9".
Reason: Correct typographical error.
FEIS, Chapter 9, Index: The index contains numbers for pages that aren't in the FEIS.
When indexing Chapters 1 and 2, the number of pages in the Summary (133 pages) was
added by the program to Chapters 1 and 2 page 'numbers. We have corrected this and
a corrected index is included as an attachment to this document.
Reason: Error.
Appendix B, page B-2, Table B.I, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and
Approvals: Change "Washington Department of Energy" to "Washington Department of
Ecology."
Reason: Error
Appendix E-4, page 16: Change the ANP/AGP Ratio for sample 443(10-15) from "<.30" to
">2083" .
Reason: Existing number is incorrect.
Appendix E-4, ABA Results for Waste Rock Samples, page 17: Change the word "numbber"
to "number".
Reason: Correct typographical error.
3
-------
Appendix E-6, ABA Results for Pit Wall Samples, page 1: Change sample designation
"109" to "D109" and "244" to "224."
Reason: Correct typographical errors.
Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation, page 5, paragraph
3: Change the Core Area total to 10,925 acres and the Analysis Area total to
70,752 acres.
Reason: These are the acreages used in the final mapping for the analysis,
consistent with the FEIS.
Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation, Table 2, page
12: Change the total acres to 70,752 acres for the Analysis Area, and 10,925 acres
for the Core Area. Change the Analysis Area Coniferous/Deciduous acres to 24,023,
and the Core Area acres as follows:
Early Successional 905 acres (8.3%)
Mixed Conifer Pole 2175 acres (19.9%)
Mixed Conifer Mature 4479 acres (41.0%)
Deciduous 39 acres (0.4%)
Riparian/Wetlands 887 acres (8.1%)
Reason.- These are the acreages used in the final mapping for the analysis,
consistent with the FEIS.
Appendix H, page 36, last paragraph: Change table citation to 4.7.4.
Reason: To be consistent with the final table numbering in the FEIS.
Appendix I, page 1-4, last sentence: Change this sentence to read, "Limited numbers of
rainbow trout were collected in Marias and Nicholson Creeks by A.G. Crook
Company..."
Reason: Correct description error.
Appendix L, page L-113, second paragraph of Response 6.8.10: Change "Section 4.8,
Water Supply Resources and Water Rights," to "Section 3.9.1, Water Supply
Resources, Introduction."
Reason: Correct reference.
Appendix L, page L-173, first paragraph of Response to 6.12.5: Change the last
sentence in the paragraph to read "White Mountain is located approximately 14 miles
northeast of the Crown Jewel Mine project. Section 4.15, Scenic Resources,
documents that scenic impacts will occur because of the mine, and evaluates
selected viewpoints in order to describe overall visual impacts. White Mountain is
not accessed by any system trail, nor is it allocated to scenic resource
management."
Reason: Error in interpretation of which "White Mountain (Mt. Spock)" on
the Colville National Forest that the commentor was referring to.
------- |