U.S.D.A.
   Forest Service
     U.S.D.I.
IUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
      (F THE INTERIOR
 JANUARY 1997
                                    300R05900F
RECORD   OF   DECISION
FOR  THE  FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT   STATEMENT
                      CROWN  JEWEL  MINE
                       Okanogan County, Washington

-------
                      RECORD OF DECISION

                       CROWN JEWEL MINE

              United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
                Tonasket Ranger District,  Okanogan National Forest

         United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management
                               Spokane District

                         Okanogan County, Washington
I.  INTRODUCTION

In January, 1992, the Proponent,  Battle
Mountain  Gold  Company and  Crown
Resources Corporation, submitted a Plan
of Operations  proposing  to  develop,
construct,  operate, close and reclaim a
surface mining and milling operation for
gold and silver recovery and production
on Buckhorn Mountain.  The purpose and
need for this decision is to respond to the
Proponent's Plan of Operations and other
permit applications for development of the
specific ore body at Buckhorn Mountain,
while protecting surface resources (see
Figure  ROD-1,  General  Location Map
and  FEIS, Section 1.3,  Purpose and
Need).

Portions of the proposed mine are located
on lands administered by the Tonasket
Ranger District of the Okanogan National
Forest  and the  Spokane District  of the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in
Washington State (see Figure  ROD-2,
Land Status Map).  The Proponent's Plan
of Operations was updated and revised
several  times  and  the  most  recent
revisions were submitted to the agencies
in 1996 (see Figure ROD-3, Selected
Alternative Map).  The legal description
for the Federal lands in the project area
covered by this decision is Township 39
North, Range 30, 31 East; Township 40
North,  Range 30, 31  East, Willamette
Meridian.

This Record of Decision documents the
decision by the Responsible Officials for
the  Okanogan   National  Forest   and
Spokane District for the BLM to select
Alternative B as presented  in the final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
for  the Crown Jewel Mine  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.5, Alternative B - Proposed
Action),   including   the   reclamation,
mitigation, monitoring and performance
security measures described in the FEIS,
Sections 2.11 through 2.14.  Alternative
B, as modified by this decision, will allow
the Proponent  to  develop,  construct,
operate,  close and  reclaim  a surface
mining and milling operation for gold and
silver   recovery  and  production  on
Buckhorn Mountain.   Because authority
for approval  of this project lies not only
with the Forest Service and BLM, but also
with other  Federal,  State  and  Local
Crown Jewel Mine
                                    ROD-1
                                                                 Record of Decision

-------
I
I
3'

-------
                                                   L EGEND

                                                    USFS LANDS
                                                    STATE LANDS
                                                    BLM LANDS
                                                    PRIVATE/FEE LANDS

                                                    MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY

                                                    MINE PIT AREA
                                                25-18'
-------
                                P 30 E  R 31 E
  IPOWERLINEJ—sc~^-
                      LEGEND
    WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA A  |	( ORE STOCKPILE AREA
     (Upper Nicholson)           |    [ TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
                               SEDIMENT POND AREAS
(    j WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA B
      (Upper Manas)
     TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA     	FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY

     SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
          FIGURE  ROD-3,  SELECTED ALTERNATIVE
                   OPERATIONAL  SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine
                                    ROD-4
Record of Decision

-------
agencies, other decision documents and
permits will be issued by the appropriate
agency to cover that agency's decisions
(see FEIS,  Section  1.8, Permits and
Approvals   Needed). This  Record  of
Decision only covers decisions under the
authority  of  the  Okanogan  National
Forest Supervisor for the United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
(Forest  Service),  and  the  Spokane
District Manager for the United States
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (see FEIS, Section 1.5,
Decisions to be Made).

The reclamation, mitigation, monitoring
and financial security measures required
as a part of this Record of Decision and
disclosed in Sections 2.11 through 2 14
of the FEIS, are the minimum measures
that will be required for the project, and
will be a condition of Forest Service and
BLM approval of the Plans of Operation,
Special  Use Authorizations, and Road
Use Permits.    As  explained  above,
because permitting authority  lies with
many other agencies, these  agencies
may require  mitigation   measures  in
addition to those approved in this FEIS to
further reduce environmental impacts.

II.  HIGHER ORDER  DIRECTION
INCORPORATED  INTO   THIS
PROJECT

Higher order direction for this  project is
provided   by   existing   laws,   rules,
regulations,  policies and higher level
documents  prepared in accordance with
the National  Environmental Policy  Act
(NEPA)  to  which  this project  is tiered.
This project must  meet  all applicable
     laws,  including but not limited to  the
     National Environmental Policy  Act;  the
     National   Forest   Management   Act
     (NFMA); the  Federal Land Policy and
     Management Act (FLPMA); the  General
     Mining Law of 1872, as amended;  the
     National Historic  Preservation  Act, as
     amended;  the Endangered Species Act;
     the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; the Federal
     Mining and  Minerals Policy  Act;  the
     National Materials and Minerals Policy,
     Research  and  Development  Act;  the
     Clean Water Act; the Clean Air Act; the
     Resource  Conservation  and Recovery
     Act,    and     the    Comprehensive
     Environmental Response, Compensation
     and Liability Act.

     The  authority and guidance  for  the
     approval of this locatable mineral project
     is  provided in the USDA Forest Service
     and USDI  Bureau of Land Management
     Surface Management  regulations  (36
     CFR 228A, 43 CFR 3809).  The NEPA
     documentation for this  project followed
     the  procedures   in  the  Council  on
     Environmental      Quality     (CEQ)
     Implementing   Regulations (40  CFR
     1500)

     Several higher order NEPA documents
     provide  direction  for   the  Federally
     administered lands included in the Crown
     Jewel Mine project.   The Crown Jewel
     Mine FEIS  is tiered to these higher order
     documents:

     •     Regional Guide  for  the  U.S.D.A.
           Forest   Service,  Pacific Northwest
           Region;

     •     Okanogan National Forest Land  and
           Resource   Management Plan,  as
           amended (Forest Plan);
Crown Jewel Mine
ROD-5
                                                                 Record of Decision

-------
•     Record of Decision for the Pacific
      Northwest     Region,     Final
      Environmental Impact Statement for
      Managing Competing and Unwanted
      Vegetation,   and   its  associated
      Mediated Agreement;

•     Decision Notice and Finding of No
      Significant   Impact,  Environmental
      Assessment for the Inland Native Fish
      Strategy (INFISH); and,

•     BLM,  Spokane  District Resource
      Management Plan, as amended.

All of the above  laws,  regulations and
higher order  NEPA documents  provide
the basis for developing the purpose and
need and issues for the project, which in
turn  set the  stage for developing the
project alternatives

III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

As   provided  in  the  Council   on
Environmental  Quality's  Implementing
Regulations    for    the     National
Environmental  Policy  Act  (40  CFR
1501.7), the  Forest Service and BLM
provided for an early and open process to
determine  the  scope of issues to be
addressed   and  the  extent   of  the
environmental analysis necessary for an
informed   decision  on  the   project.
Elements of the scoping process included
publication of  a  Notice of Intent  to
prepare an EIS in the Federal  Register
and updates to that Notice of Intent, and
a  formal scoping process  (see FEIS,
Section 1.9, Scoping, Public Involvement
and Consultation with the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation).
The  formal scoping process began on
February 14, 1992 and ended on April 24,
1992.   The  formal  scoping  process
included:

•     Government to government meetings;
•     Public scoping meetings;
•     Public mailings;
•     Federal Register notices; and
•     Setting up reading rooms for project
      baseline reports

Scoping resulted in a final list of issues
that was made available to the public in a
Scoping Summary Document in 1993.

Public involvement continued  to occur
throughout the  analysis  process,  and
included newsletters, press releases and
public meetings.  A series of 14 public
meetings focused on specific aspects of
the project. A draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS)  was released to the
public on  June 30, 1995, with a 60 day
formal comment period, which ended on
August 29, 1995. Over 4,600 letters and
public hearing comments were received
on the project during the public review
period. The agencies involved in the pro-
ject additionally  held 7 public meetings,
hearings and tours on the project during
the formal  comment period. Over 15,000
individual  comments from the letters and
public hearing statements were reviewed,
analyzed,  summarized and responded to
in the FEIS (Appendix L).

IV. CHANGES BETWEEN DRAFT
AND FINAL EIS

A modified Alternative E was identified as
the preferred alternative  in the cover
letter to the draft EIS.  This alternative
was not considered in detail in the final
EIS because additional analysis identified
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-6
                                                                   Record of Decision

-------
previously unanticipated environmental
and  technical  problems  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.3.2,  Alternatives  Considered
But Eliminated from  Detailed  Study).
Between  the draft  and final  EIS the
Proponent  modified  their   proposal,
presented as Alternative B in the DEIS
(including    additional   requirements
imposed   by  the   agencies).     The
Proponent's revised proposal responded
to:  1) public concerns raised during the
DEIS comment period; 2) interpretation of
the State  Metal Mining and Milling Act;
and 3) other issues  identified by the
agencies.   The revised proposal  was
submitted to the agencies  in 1995 and
1996.  The important changes  between
draft and final EIS include:

•      a redesigned tailings facility including
       a   multi-layered  engineered  liner
       system  incorporating  two  synthetic
       liners;

•      downstream  tailings  embankment
       construction;

•      reconfigured  north and south waste
       rock  disposal   areas  with   flatter
       reclaimed slopes;

•      added  pit  reclamation   and  re-
       vegetation measures;

•      augmented pit lake filling; and,

•      enlarged   project  boundary   fence
       enclosure

The Proponent's revised proposal, along
with    additional     and    expanded
reclamation, mitigation, monitoring, and
financial   guarantee   measures    is
presented as Alternative B in the FEIS.
V.  DECISION AND RATIONALE

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION

Based upon the analysis in the final EIS
(FEIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine project,
it is our decision to select Alternative B as
described in the Crown Jewel Mine FEIS
(see FEIS, Section 2.5,  Alternative B  -
Proposed   Action),    including   the
reclamation, mitigation, monitoring  and
performance security measures described
in Sections 2.11 through 2.14 of the FEIS
(see Figure ROD-3, Selected Alternative;
and Table  ROD-1,  Summary  of  the
Selected Alternative). Alternative  B is the
Proponent's   revised   proposal   with
additional   reclamation,    mitigation,
monitoring and performance  security
measures.   Through this  Record of
Decision,  Alternative B presented in the
FEIS is modified to replace all "should"
and "would" words  in  Sections  2.11
through 2.14,   with the   word  "shall",
except for Sections 2.12.16.1,2.12.16.2
and 2.12.19.    The  requirements in
Sections 2.11 through 2.14 shall be  fully
incorporated into the Plans of Operation,
Special Use Authorizations,  and Road
Use Permits. This modified Alternative B
is hereafter referred to as the Selected
Alternative. The Selected Alternative will
be implemented through the approval of
Plans   of  Operations,  Special   Use
Authorizations, and  Road Use Permits
that cover the project activities located on
Federally administered lands.

This decision applies only to those project
components or portions thereof which are
located on lands  administered  by the
Forest Service and BLM  (see  Figure
ROD-2, Land  Status Map). This project
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-7
                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
TABLE  ROD-1, Summary of the  Selected Alternative
   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 (acres)

            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
   Notes:    1.        FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
            2.        The Proponent's plan of operation included a pit area of 116 acres.  A 22 acre safety buffer zone
                     has been added by the lead agencies since an area 100 feet wide around the pit would need to be
                     cleared so trees could not fall into the pit.
Crown Jewel Mine                                      ftOD-8                                     Record of Decision

-------
requires amendment of the Okanogan
National  Forest Land  and  Resource
Management Plan, which is detailed in
the following Decision Rationale section
and in the FEIS, Section 2.1.5, Project
Alternative Comparison.

Components of the Selected Alternative,
include   (See   FEIS,   Section   2.5,
Alternative B - Proposed Action):

•     year-round  open  pit  mining  at
      approximately 3,000 tons of ore per
      day, operating 24 hours a day,

•     a valley fill ore stockpile pad;

•     north and  south waste  rock disposal
      areas;

•     an underground crushing facility;

•     on-site conventional tank cyanidation
      processing using the INCO cyanide
      destruct process;

•     an   upper Marias  Creek  tailings
      impoundment;

•     an office and maintenance complex;

•     miscellaneous    support   facilities
      including haul and access roads;

•     water  reservoir  and  water  supply
      pipeline;

•     an electric power transmission line,

•     transportation of supplies to the mine
      site through Wauconda via year-round
      State Highway 20 to County  Road
      9495 (Toroda Creek Road),  to County
      Road 9480 (Beaver Canyon Road), to
      County Road 4895 and Forest  Road
      3575-120 to the site; and,
•      employee busing to the mine site from
       locations in or near Oroville

Approximately   788   acres   will   be
physically disturbed within a 2,000 acre
fenced project  area boundary under the
Selected Alternative  Project life will be
approximately 10 years, including 1 year
for construction, 8 for operations,  and 1
for reclamation (see FEIS,  Section 2.5,
Alternative   B  -   Proposed  Action).
Reclamation  will  leave  the  northern
portion of the mine  pit  to fill with water,
creating a lake. Pit filling will be expedited
with water  from Myers Creek via  the
Starrem  Reservoir.   Portions of the  pit
and the remaining disturbed area will be
contour graded, sloped, topsoiled and  re-
vegetated with grass, shrubs  and trees.
Sections of the pit walls will be selectively
blasted to break  up rectilinear features.
Buildings  and other temporary facilities
will be removed  from the site although
clean  concrete  foundations  can   be
broken up and  buried on-site (see FEIS,
Sections 2.11, Reclamation Measures;
and, 2.12  Management and  Mitigation
Measures).

Final reclaimed slopes  of mine facilities,
such as waste rock disposal areas and
the tailings  embankment outslopes,  will
create  slopes that blend with surrounding
undisturbed  topography and generally
range  from  2.5H  1V (horizontal:vertical)
to 3H:1 V or flatter.  For example, Tables
ROD-2 and  ROD-3  show  the  final
reclaimed slopes of the north and south
waste  rock disposal  areas  by  land
ownership.   These slope  distributions
represent the steepest acceptable final
slope configurations for the waste rock
facilities  (see   FEIS,   Section  2.11,
Crown Jewel Mine
                                       ROD-9
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
TABLE ROD-2, Final Reclaimed Slope Configuration for North Waste Rock Facility
                                  SLOPE CLASS

Forest
Service
Approx.
Acres (% of
total)
BLM
Approx.
Acres
(% of total)
State
Approx.
Acres
(% of total)
Approx. Total
Acres
<2H:1V

3
(<2%)



5
(3%)


<1
(<1%)


<9 (5%)
2-2.5H:1V

12
(7%)



18
(11%)


0
(0%)


30(18%)
2.5-3H:1V

9
(6%)



28
(17%)


0
(0%)


37 (23%)
>3H:1V

16
(10%)



67
(41 %)


5
(3%)


88 (54%)
Total Acres

40




118



<6



<164
  TABLE ROD-3, Final Reclaimed Slope Configuration for South Waste Rock Facility
                       (Entirely on Forest Service lands)
                                  SLOPE CLASS

Forest
Service
Approx.
Acres (% of
total)
<2H:1V

20
(16%)


2-2.5H:1V

30
(24%)


2.5-3H:1V

28
(22%)


>3H:1V

47
(38%)


Total Acres

125



Crown Jewel Mine
                                    ROD-10
                                                                 Record of Decision

-------
 Reclamation   Measures;   and   Issue:
 Reclamation under Environmental Issues
 Considered and Addressed, below).

 Besides the Forest Service  ana  BLM,
 other agencies that may require permits
 for the project are shown in Table ROD-4,
 List  of Tentative and  Potential Permits
 and  Approvals. Only those listed under
 Forest Service and BLM are covered by
 this decision. The Record of Decision or
 approval  of the  Plans  of  Operation,
 Special Use Authorizations,  and Road
 Use  Permits will not relieve the Proponent
 of their legal obligation to comply with all
 applicable  county,  state,  and federal
 requirements.

 Approval of the Selected Alternative will
 not  now,  nor in  the future,  serve as a
 determination of ownership or validity of
 any  mining claim to which it may relate,
 and this Record of Decision does not give
 the claim owner or operator any rights
 they are'not otherwise entitled to by law.

 Because this decision differs from the
 Proponent's revised Plan of Operations,
 the Proponent  will be required to revise
 their Plan  of Operations to  match the
 requirements   documented   in   this
 decision, and  resubmit it to the Forest
 Service and BLM  The Forest Service
 and  BLM have different approaches to
 implementation (see Section X below).
 The  Forest Service will not approve the
 Plan   of   Operations,   Special   Use
Authorizations, and Road  Use Permits
 until  this  decision  has  cleared  the
 mandatory  stay process described in the
 Section X of this ROD on implementation.
After the Plan of Operations, Special Use
Authorizations, and Road  Use Permits
are approved by the Forest Service for
the Crown  Jewel Mine, the Proponent
could proceed with portions of the project
on  Forest Service administered lands,
although  many portions could  not  be
implemented until other agencies issue
permits relating to the project. The BLM
will   issue  a  separate  decision   for
approval  of a  Plan of Operations that
meets BLM requirements.

Implementation will follow the following
procedure.

•      The Plans of Operation prepared by
       the Proponent for the Crown Jewel
       Mine  project that incorporate   the
       Selected    Alternative   and    the
       associated detailed cost estimates for
       financial guarantees, will be subject to
       approval  by the responsible  officials
       for the Forest Service and BLM.  The
       Proponent will be  required  to post
       financial  guarantees,   including  a
       Reclamation  bond  or acceptable
       security  equal  to  100%   of   the
       estimated reclamation cost,  and an
       Environmental Protection Performance
       Security  These financial guarantees
       will  be subject to periodic escalation or
       reduction to  maintain  the   amount
       needed    for   reclamation    and
       environmental protection. Within 60
       days  of  approval  of  the  Plan of
       Operations  and financial guarantee
       amount,  and prior to  initiating  any
       further ground disturbing activities, the
       Proponent  shall  post  the financial
       guarantees   as  directed   by  the
       responsible  officials for the Forest
       Service and BLM (see FEIS,  Section
       2.14, Performance  Securities).

•      The agencies will approve Special Use
       Authorizations and  Road Use  Permits
       for some components of the Selected
       Alternative.
Crown Jewel Mine
                                       ROD-11
                                                                      Record of Decision

-------
TABLE ROD-4, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT • .- - • ; ...v. ••::••; •• : -. :y ::: v •
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
. • •' - ";W V" ' j.-V ••;•,•;.•••.-•./• ' .'..
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge
and Fill)
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan
• Review of Section 404 Permit
• Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity1
• Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation
(Section 7 Consultation)
• Radio Authorizations
• Explosives User Permit
• Mine Identification Number1
• Legal Identity Report1
• Miner Training Plan Approval
STATE OF; WASHINGTON J ;.v. . . . ^•-j-:.-^ '. . . • . ' -. •
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
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ;
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit
• State Waste Discharge Permit
• Water Quality Standards Modification
• Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean
Water Act)
• Dam Safety Permits
• Reservoir Permit
• Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
• Changes to Existing Water Rights
• Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
• Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air
Quality)2
• Dangerous Waste Permit2
• Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
• Forest Practice Application
• Burning Permit (Fire Protection)
• Hydraulic Project Approval
• Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966)
• Sewage Disposal Permit
• Public Water Supply Approval
• Explosive License
• Safety Regulation Compliance1

• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Requirements
• Building Permits
• Maximum Environmental Noise Levels1
• Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Approval (County
Commissioners)
• Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
• Solid Waste Handling
• Septic Tanks and Drain Field Approval
• Road Construction and/or Realignment
• Power Service Contract
Crown Jewel Mine
                                       ROD-12
                                                                        Record of Decision

-------
      The U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers
      (Corps) will issue a separate Record
      of Decision for their Federal decision
      under Section 404 of the Clean Water
      Act. Final Clean Water Act mitigation
      and compliance for Section 404 will be
      determined in the Corps Record  of
      Decision.

      After construction begins, an annual
      monitoring report will be prepared by
      the Proponent and submitted to the
      Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
      Management by March  15th  each
      year.  The annual report will include a
      summary  and  interpretation  of all
      monitoring data.   In  addition, the
      monitoring report will  include the
      results of on-going studies such as the
      re-vegetation test plots.  The Forest
      Service, Bureau of Land Management
      and Proponent will  meet annually to
      review  the  monitoring  results  and
      Operating Plan. Personnel from the
      Washington  Department  of Natural
      Resources, Washington  Department
      of Ecology, and Corps of Engineers
      will be invited to  this meeting.   In
      addition the Proponent will provide all
      monitoring   data    required    by
      Washington  Department of Ecology
      (WADOE) to the Forest Service and
      Bureau of Land Management, unless
      otherwise  specified.   Data will be
      provided  in  the  same  format as
      provided  to  WADOE  (see  FEIS,
      Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures).

      Any exceedances of monitoring criteria
      will be brought to the attention of the
      Forest  Service  and  BLM within 30
      days  of discovery unless other  time
      frames are required by permit, law or
      this Record  of Decision (see FEIS,
      Section 2.13, Monitoring).

      Changes to  the approved Plans of
      Operation will  be  processed  and
      evaluated  in accordance with 36 CFR
      228A  and  43  CFR  3809  Surface
      Management    Regulations    and
      established     procedures     for
      determining if changes would trigger
      the need for additional NEPA analysis.

RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

Analysis of individual components and
whole  alternatives documented  in the
FEIS was the important basis  for the
decision. The environmental effects were
carefully  considered  along  with the
requirements of  other  applicable  laws,
regulations, and policies  This complex
task  often  identified  effects   which
benefited   one   resource,   law,  or
regulation,  but  conflicted with  one or
more others.  The Selected Alternative
best meets the purpose and need and is
consistent with all laws, regulations, and
policies applicable to this decision.  The
General  Mining  Law   of   1872,  as
amended, established the statutory right
of U. S. Citizens to  explore for and/or
develop    mineral    resources    and
encouraged such activity consistent with
the Mining and Mineral Policy Act and the
Federal  Land Policy and Management
Act   The  regulations for  implementing
these laws require responsible  federal
agencies to include adequate provisions
to  minimize,  to  the extent  practical,
adverse environmental impacts on public
lands;  include  measures to  provide for
reclamation,   where  practicable;   and
comply with other applicable federal and
state laws and regulations. This limits the
scope  of  decision   making  discretion
available to  the  decision  makers (see
FEIS, Section 1.3, Purpose and Need).
Crown Jewel Mine
                                       ROD-13
                                                                       Record of Decision

-------
The   Selected   Alternative   is    in
conformance with  the  approved  BLM
Spokane Resource Management Plan, as
amended December,  1992, and will not
result   in   unnecessary   or  undue
degradation to the environment.

Decision Components

Open Pit Mining

Open  pit mining  is the most efficient
mining method for the Crown Jewel ore
deposit.   This  method  will  allow  the
greatest  recovery of the gold resource
while    meeting   applicable   laws,
regulations,   and  policies  (see  FEIS,
Sections  2.2.2,  Mining  Methods;  2.5
through 2.10, Alternatives B through G -
Ore  Recovery;   and   421,   Mining
Economics).

Year  Around,   24  hours/day,  3,000
tons/day operation

The operating schedule and production
rate   selected   offer   the    greatest
operational   efficiency.    This  option
reduces   the  time period  of impact,
especially concerning water and energy
use and impacts to wildlife, wetlands, and
air quality compared to the 12  hour/day,
1,500 tons/day mining operation.  Light
type and  shielding required  under  the
Selected Alternative will minimize but not
fully alleviate nighttime glare from  the
operations. Blasting will be restricted to
daytime hours, no more than  twice  per
day, except  in  emergency  situations
Operational noise in existing or potential
residential areas  will  meet applicable
Washington  Department  of   Ecology
daylight and nighttime noise limits At the
     main  residential  areas  of   Chesaw,
     Bolster, and Pine Chee, mine operations
     should  be  inaudible  or  only slightly
     audible during most times of  the  day.
     During winter nights, with east-wind and
     inversion   conditions,   operations  are
     expected to be more audible outside, but
     should  not  be noticeable  inside when
     windows are closed (see FEIS,  Sections
     2.2.3,   Operating   Schedule;   2.2.4,
     Production Schedule; 2.12  Management
     and Mitigation Measures; 4.1, Air Quality;
     4.10, Wetlands; 4.12,  Wildlife; 4.13,
     Noise; and 4.15, Scenic Resources).

     Ore Stockpile Pad

     A valley-fill ore stockpile pad is approved
     in  the  Selected  Alternative.   Side-hill
     excavation was considered as an option
     to reduce impacts to the Riparian Habitat
     Conservation Area (RHCA) as specified
     in  the  Inland  Native  Fish   Strategy
     standards  and  guidelines.  However,
     side-hill   excavation   proved   to   be
     unreasonable   because   of   reduced
     storage capacity and  technical design
     and safety considerations.  The side-hill
     option also resulted in  twice the surface
     disturbance of the valley-fill alternative
     because of the larger excavation  required
     (see FEIS, Section 4 7,  Surface  Water
     Effects Common to All Alternatives - Ore
     Stockpile)  The  location of the stockpile
     facility will meet the direction in the Inland
     Native Fish Strategy because reasonable
     locations  for the  facility not  affecting
     RHCAs are not available and the location
     of  the stockpile  will  meet the criteria
     established  by INFISH for  facilities  that
     impact RHCAs (see FEIS, Section 4.11.8,
     Forest  Service  Inland  Native  Fish
     Strategy).
Crown Jewel Mine
ROD-14
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
The Gold Bowl drainage will be diverted
around  the  ore  stockpile  pad  in  a
constructed channel.

Waste Rock Disposal

The main issues relevant to waste rock
disposal facilities are size, location, and
reclaimed slope angle.  Generally, flatter
slopes are more easily re-vegetated and
are  less susceptible to soil  loss.   The
tradeoff is increased footprint area and
disturbance and related surface impacts.
All   alternative  waste  rock  disposal
facilities would be geotechnically stable
with implementation of the  mitigation and
monitoring requirements.  A waste rock
management  plan  will be required  to
ensure  isolation, encapsulation, and/or
blending of potentially acid-generating
waste rock with  neutralizing rock  to
minimize  the   potential  for  acid  rock
drainage or "hot spot" development.  The
Selected Alternative will  not  cover the
frog pond, and any indirect impacts will
be minimized by water augmentation  or
other appropriate mitigation, if necessary.
Effects to other wetlands from the waste
rock disposal  areas will be  minimized.
These facilities  will include  a  water
monitoring network  to detect localized
degradation   and   enable   corrective
measures to be taken, if needed (see
FEIS,  Sections  2.2.5,   Waste   Rock
Disposal;  2.11, Reclamation  Measures;
2.12.5, Geochemistry Mitigation; 2.12.6,
Geology and  Geotechnical  Mitigation,
2.13.1,  Water  Resource  Monitoring,
2.13.3, Geotechnical Monitoring; 2.13.4,
Geochemical     Monitoring;     3.3.3,
Geochemistry;    4.4,     Geotechnical
Considerations; 4.10, Wetlands)
Ore Crushing Facilities

The Selected Alternative  provides  for
underground ore crushing facilities.  Such
facilities will aid in the control of fugitive
dust emissions and noise  compared to
surface crushing facilities.  No  negative
effects  caused  by  the  underground
facilities  were  identified  (see  FEIS,
Sections   2.2 6,  Ore   Processing   -
Crushing; 4.1, Air Quality; 4 13.5, Noise -
Alternative C).

Ore Processing Method

The selected  component,  on-site tank
cyanidation, is the most efficient option
for  processing  Crown Jewel  ore.  This
process is well understood  and  time-
tested.     Flotation  processing  was
examined  in   the   FEIS  but  is   not
economically feasible  for the Crown
Jewel   deposit.     Other  non-cyanide
lixivient-leaching processes  have  not
been  commercially proven.  Moreover,
non-cyanide options involve other toxic
reagents and thus would  not eliminate  the
use of such reagents or their potential for
accidental  release into the environment
(see FEIS, Section 2.2.8, Ore Processing
Methods).  In addition,  a component in
which all ore processing was done off site
was considered.  This  component was
rejected  because  it  simply relocated
potential impacts  to  another site and
substantially increased costs.  Additional
impacts   would   also   occur   from
transportation  of  ore  to  the  off-site
processing location (see FEIS, Section
2.2.9, Off-Site Processing).
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-15
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
Cyanide Destruct Process

INCO S02/Air/Oxidation is included in the
Selected  Alternative  for destruction of
cyanide in the mill tailings.  This process
has  been shown to  be effective and
efficient   in   bench-scale   (laboratory)
detoxification  tests of processed  Crown
Jewel  ore.   Other  cyanide destruction
methods  showing similar effectiveness
(alkaline  chlorination  and  hydrogen
peroxide) do not offer environmental
benefits  over the INCO method (see
FEIS,  Section 2.2.8,  Ore  Processing
Methods;  2.2.11, Cyanide Destruction)

Tailing Facility

The  Selected  Alternative provides for a
Marias Creek tailings facility location that
will include  a multi-layered engineered
liner system incorporating two synthetic
liners  with  an  overdrain  system  for
tailings dewatering,   a  leak  detection
system,   and   an    underdrain   for
intercepting ground  and surface water
within  the footprint of the facility (see
FEIS,  Section 2.2.15,  Tailings   Liner
System Design).    The  Marias  Creek
location  minimizes  footprint area  and
associated surface  impacts relative  to
other alternative  sites that were fully
analyzed.  Acreage  of direct wetlands
impacts for the Selected Alternative  will
be slightly less than the South Nicholson
Site (2.46 vs. 2.52 acres) but greater than
the  0.22  acres  of  the  Lower  South
Nicholson facility. The length  of stream
channel   eliminated   by the  Selected
Alternative will be less than the  Lower
South Nicholson Site  (4,200' vs. 5,000')
but greater than the  3,500 lineal  feet in
the South Nicholson Site. Marias Creek
is  an  intermittent  stream  below  the
tailings dam while South Nicholson is a
perennial stream (see FEIS, Section 4.7,
Surface  Water;  4.10,  Wetlands;  and
Appendix K -  Tailings Site Selection).
These  impacts  will be   mitigated   as
described in Issue: Effects to Wetlands,
Streams, Springs and Seeps, below.  The
Selected  Alternative  involves  smaller
embankment structures [240' vs. 315' and
370' (see FEIS, Section 2.2.13, Tailings
Disposal  Locations)],  a  smaller   up-
drainage watershed (280 acres vs. 625
and 950 acres), and requires less water
diversion, all of which  improves short-
term and long-term stability over the other
alternatives (see  FEIS, Section 2.2.14,
Tailings   Embankment   Design   and
Construction).

Potential off-site valley floor and upland
tailings disposal  locations  within a  10-
mile radius of the mine, and on-site side-
hill disposal areas were evaluated. While
some  of these options reduced direct
impacts to wetlands and stream channels,
they would require more disturbance (2-6
times)  with  attendant   surface  and
construction impacts; require add' . inal
water;   have    higher    construction,
maintenance and  mitigation costs; would
increase the potential for spills because
of the long delivery and return pipelines,
require additional  employees to maintain
the additional facilities; and are likely to
involve private lands, including occupied
residential   lands  (see FEIS,  Section
2.2.13, Tailings Disposal Locations).

The location of the tailings facility will
meet the  direction in the  Inland  Native
Fish   Strategy   because   reasonable
locations  for the facility   not  affecting
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-16
                                                                      Record of Decision

-------
RHCAs are not available and the location
of  the facility  will  meet  the  criteria
established by  INFISH for facilities that
impact RHCAs (see FEIS, Section 4.11.8,
Forest  Service  Inland  Native  Fish
Strategy).

Water Supply Pipeline

A  buried   water  supply  pipeline   is
approved across BLM and Forest Service
administered  lands  in   the  Selected
Alternative.  This is part of a pipeline that
will connect to  other facilities on non-
Federal  lands  proposed  under  the
Selected   Alternative   including  the
Starrem Creek  reservoir, Myers  Creek
diversion structure and  pump facilities.
Decision authority for the facilities  on
non-Federal lands lies with Washington
State and  Okanogan County, although
those facilities are an integral part of the
Selected Alternative.

Eight other reservoir locations, plus direct
pumping from  the  Kettle River,  were
evaluated.    The  use  of the tailings
impoundment facility as a reservoir was
eliminated since external use of the water
for dust control, domestic and general
utility  use,  and fire  fighting reserves
would  be  prohibited and the preferred
thin-layer deposition of tailings would be
precluded    Direct pumping from the
Kettle River was also eliminated since it
is unlikely that the Proponent would be
granted  the necessary  water  rights
permits to divert water  on a 24-hour,
year-round  basis.   This  is predicted
because the Kettle River is already below
Washington  State Department of Fish
and Wildlife recommended summertime
flows.  The selected option results in the
     least additional impacts to wetlands (see
     FEIS, Section 2.2.19, Water Supply; and
     2.2.20, Water Storage). The final design
     and construction of any reservoir will be
     subject to the regulations of the Dam
     Safety Division of the Washington State
     Department of Ecology.

     Powerline

     A surface powerline will be constructed to
     the mine site across National Forest
     System  lands  up  the  Ethel  Creek
     drainage from the terminus of the existing
     line near Chesaw. The existing line from
     Oroville to Chesaw will be reconstructed.
     The new line on Federal  lands will meet
     the maximum modification scenic quality
     objective  and  power   poles  will  be
     designed to discourage raptor use.  The
     portion of the line on Federal lands will be
     removed at project completion  to improve
     long  term  scenic  quality  (see   FEIS
     Section 2.2.22, Power  Supply; 2.11.4,
     General   Reclamation    Procedures;
     2.12.18.8,   Raptor   Electrocution-Proof
     Power   Poles;  and    415,   Scenic
     Resources).

     Forest Plan Amendment

     The Okanogan National Forest Land and
     Resource  Management   Plan (Forest
     Plan) did not attempt to accommodate
     potential large mining operations when
     developing Management Area Standards
     and Guidelines because of the  difficulty in
     predicting actual  locations or  kinds of
     developments.  It was expected that such
     operations  involving  large,   intensive
     disturbances would  not be able to meet
     standards  and guidelines   developed
     principally  for  low-intensity  vegetation
Crown Jewel Mine
ROD-17
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
management projects (see page 4-21  of
the Forest Plan). This decision includes
a  non-significant  amendment  of the
Forest  Plan which  provides  a  new
management prescription, designated as
Management  Area  (MA)    27,   and
associated standards and guidelines (see
Table ROD-5).  The Crown  Jewel Mine
project  area will  be allocated  to MA 27
during the life of the project, the boundary
of which  is the project fence line (see
FEIS, Section 2.1.5, Project Alternative
Comparison).    By  this  decision the
following  project MA 27 standards and
guidelines are specified:

MA27-8A:    The  post-rehabilitation  Scenic
Quality Objective of "maximum modification"
shall apply following successful re-vegetation

MA27-6A:  Cover standards applicable to re-
vegetation of disturbed mine lands will be as
specified  in  Crown  Jewel  Mine  FEIS
Monitoring  item   2.13.10,  Re-vegetation
Monitoring.

MA27-17A:      Road   construction   and
reconstruction will  be as specified in Crown
Jewel  Mine  FEIS   mitigation  measures
2.12.14.4,  Road Use Permit  and 2.12.14.6,
Junction Improvement.  Road closures and
management will be  as specified  in FEIS
mitigation  measures  2.12.14.4, Road Use
Permit;  2.12.14.5,  Road   Closure;  and
2.12.18.2, Wildlife Road  Closures.  Any pre-
existing roads determined to be necessary for
long-term management of the area will be re-
established  by the  Proponent at  project
completion.  Forest Road 3575-100 will be
relocated during reclamation.

MA27-18A:     The   design,   placement,
construction, and closure of all facilities shall
be as specified in the Selected Alternative and
applicable State and Local laws and permits.
 MA27-18C:   Facilities  to be  retained or
 reconstructed after mine closure are specified
 in the FEIS, Sections 2.11, Reclamation and
 2.12.7.4, Livestock Fencing; or as determined
 by approved Operating Plan modifications

 MA27-18D:  Hazardous substances, mining
 residues  and  tailings  shall  be  removed,
 treated, or  stored on site as specified in the
 Selected   Alternative  and   according  to
 applicable State and Local laws and permits.
 Management  of hazardous substances is
 specified in  FEIS Sections 2.11, Reclamation
 Measures; 2.12,  Management and Mitigation;
 and 2.13, Monitoring Measures.

 MA27-18E: Solid wastes shall be removed,
 treated or stored on site as specified in the
 Selected  Alternative; FEIS Sections 2.11,
 Reclamation  and  2.12.21,  Solid  Waste
 Management;  and  according  to applicable
 State and Local  laws and permits.

 This decision  also amends any  Forest
 Plan   Forest-Wide   Standards   and
 Guidelines as necessary to be consistent
 with the Selected  Alternative  (see FEIS,
 Sections  1.6,  Okanogan  Forest Plan
 Consistency;   1 7   Spokane   District
 Resource     Management     Plan
 Consistency;    and    2.1  5,    Project
Alternative Comparison).

This amendment  is  non-significant as
defined in 36  CFR,  Part 219, 219.10,
 because the amendment will not result in
any  substantial  changes   in  overall
outputs or effects predicted in the  Forest
 Plan   Although some long-term effects
will  occur, the mine  is  a  short-term
operation,  and  once  reclamation  is
completed, management of the lands will
revert  back to  the original  Forest Plan
management   areas,  or   replacement
management  areas specified  in   future
Crown Jewel Mine
                                       ROD-18
                                                                       Record of Decision

-------
TABLE ROD-5, Management Area 27
  GOAL STATEMENT:  Provide for minerals development, intensive minerals exploration activities, and site rehabilitation
  while protecting other resource values to the extent reasonable and feasible.

  DESCRIPTION: This applies to Management Area 27. The area allocated to this use includes only the specific areas of
  minerals development or intensive exploration.

  DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION: Minerals development and intensive minerals exploration activities are limited to the area
  necessary for their efficient, economic, and orderly progression. The activities are carried out so that any effects on other
  resources are minimized to the extent reasonable and feasible, and all legal resource protection  requirements are met.
  Other resources uses and activities may be permitted where  activities are compatible with public safety  and efficient and
  safe mining and related operations.  Sites will be rehabilitated following exploration or development to provide geomorphic
  and hydrologic stability, habitat values, scenic values, and other uses of the National Forest. The goal of rehabilitation will
  be to allow the return of the land to the former management emphasis.
     Activity
                                                      Standards and Guidelines
  Recreation      MA27-8A The scenic quality objectives may not be met during mineral operations.  The SQO will be
                 determined by the Project NEPA decision document, with a long-term or post-rehabilitation goal of
                 achieving a visual quality objective that considers the goals and objectives of the former management
                 emphasis.

                 MA27-8B Roaded modified recreation opportunities may be provided where compatible with public safety
                 and efficient and safe mining operations.
  Wildlife         MA27-6A Cover standards applicable to discrete MA27 shall be determined in the Project NEPA decision
                 document.
  Range          MA27-11A Manage commercial livestock to reduce conflicts with mineral  activities.

                 MA27-11 B Revegetation activities during site rehabilitation shall be designated to reestablish vegetation
                 having long-term stability.  Use locally adapted  native species where ever feasible.
  Timber         MA27-20A Scheduled timber harvest shall not  occur.

                 MA27-20B Unscheduled timoer harvest activities may occur when necessary for mineral exploration and
                 development, and when necessary to prevent the spread of disease or insects to adjacent areas and
                 ownerships, or meet other resource  needs.

                 MA27-20C Reforestation of formerly forested sites shall occur with locally adapted native species and
                 seed sources to the extent feasible.
  Minerals        MA27-15A NEPA analysis and decision documents shall address site rehabilitation and reclamation
                 activities.
  Access         MA27-17A Roads shall be constructed or reconstructed to appropriate standards where necessary to
                 provide access for minerals exploration and development.  Public use of  roads may be restricted or
                 prohibited for reasons of safety, or to avoid conflict with mining operations.  Project NEPA Decision
                 Documents shall provide for road management, and reclamation requirements for roads at the close of
                 operations.

  Facilities        MA27-18A Facilities necessary to mineral operations are allowed.  Design, placement, construction, and
                 closure of all facilities shall be in accordance with the Project NEPA Decision Documents.

                 MA27-18B Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and operated to contain hazardous substances.
                 Facilities shall  be designed and operated to minimize human, wildlife, or  domestic livestock exposure to
                 hazardous substances.

                 MA27-18C With the exception of facilities identified in  the  NEPA Decision Document for retention,
                 facilities shall be removed or dismantled upon completion of intended use, and evidence of their presence
                 shall be obliterated during rehabilitation of the site.

                 MA27-18D Hazardous substances, mining residues and tailings shall be  removed from the site and/or
                 appropriately treated and left on-site in accordance  with the NEPA Decision Document and applicable
                 state and local laws and regulations.

                 MA27-18E Solid wastes produced incidentally to the management of mineral exploration or development
                 shall be disposed of in accordance with direction in the NEPA Decision Document and applicable state and
                 local laws and regulations.
  Fire Protection  MA27-19A the preferred suppression strategy is control.

                 MA27-19B Permittees shall assume  responsibility for securing fire protection of structures and mining
                 facilities from structural  fires.
 Crown Jewel Mine
                                                       ROD-19
                                                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
Forest Plan  revisions or amendments
(see FEIS, 4.18, Land Use/Reclamation).

Environmental Issues Considered and
Addressed

This section addresses all of the selected
issues identified  for the Crown Jewel
Mine project.  Effects are described in the
FEIS,    Chapter    4,    Environmental
Consequences. Environmental protection
measures are listed in Chapter 2 of the
FEIS  (see   FEIS,  Sections   2.11,
Reclamation     Measures,    2.12,
Management and Mitigation Measures;
2.13, Monitoring  Measures, and  2.14,
Performance  Securities).

Issue: Effects to Air Quality

The proponent modeled the peak-year
ambient concentrations for fugitive dust at
the proposed fence line  boundary, and
toxic pollutants  at  Chesaw.   Their
modeling indicates that  levels are  less
than the allowable  limits set by WADOE,
although  WADOE has not yet approved
the modeling submitted by the proponent.
Issuance  of a  "Notice of Construction, air
quality permit" is under the jurisdiction of
the WADOE.  WADOE  will require  the
proponent to demonstrate that the project
will  not  cause  or  contribute  to  an
exceedance  in  ambient  air  quality
standards prior to permit issuance.  The
modeled visibility impacts at the Pasayten
Wilderness are less than the guidelines
set by the United States Environmental
Protection  Agency.    The  non-fugitive
emissions for the project are about 10
tons per year which is much less than the
250 tons  per year threshold  for requiring
a Prevention  of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit.

The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions
from the proposed project  could cause
visibility   impacts   at   the  Pasayten
Wilderness if a combination of worst-case
conditions   are  assumed   to   occur
(uninterrupted   upper   level   winds
transporting   the   mine    emissions
westward; 100% conversion of sulfur and
nitrogen  to  secondary particles;  100%
reaction  of  the sulfur  and  nitrogen
particulates  with water,  and a summer
time relative humidity of 65% or greater).
These conditions   have  a  very  low
probability of occurring

The nitrogen  deposition  rate  in  the
Pasayten Wilderness may  already  be
near the level that could cause damage to
plants because of impacts from Western
Washington. Although very unlikely, the
occurrence of the worst case conditions
described above, along with mine related
nitrogen deposition could add to baseline
loads, resulting  in  exceeding threshold
values  (see  FEIS,  Section  4.1,  Air
Quality).

Issue: Effects on Heritage Resources and
Native American Issues

The Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Indian Reservation have reserved hunting
and fishing rights from an agreement on
May 9, 1891 ceding the North Half of the
reservation. Approximately 2000 acres of
hunting and fishing territory will  not  be
available to Tribal members over the life
of the project. This  is less than 1 % of the
total acreage of Federal lands available
for Tribal hunting within the North Half.
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-20
                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
The small streams within the project area
do not support fish populations.  Project
effects to the harvest of wildlife and fish
by tribal  members is not quantifiable;
rather the effects  to  wildlife and fish
habitat  and  stream   flows  has  been
disclosed in the FEIS (see Sections 4.11
Aquatic  Habitat and   Populations; and
4.12  Wildlife).   Effects on off-site fish-
bearing waters is  addressed in Issue:
Effects on Surface and Ground Waters
and Issue: Effects on Fish, below.  The
Tribes may have water rights stemming
from  the 1891  agreement, however, the
extent of those rights is unknown.

Recent   federal  policy   incorporates
traditional   cultural   properties   (i.e.
locations for collecting important plants or
natural  resources, or for  spiritual or
religious purposes) as  an element of the
Federal Historic Preservation Program
The  locations  of  such properties are
protected  under   the Archaeological
Resources Protection  Act.  The Tribes
performed  their  own  inventory  for
traditional  cultural  properties.     No
important   properties   were  found,
however, disturbance from previous land
management   activities   may   have
impacted plant  habitats or  locations.

The project will  impact six known cultural
resource  sites, only one  of  which has
been determined to be potentially eligible
for the  National  Register  of Historic
Places.    The  other five  sites are not
eligible for the National Register.  Two
additional eligible sites are located along
the powerline corridor,  one of which will
be avoided, and the other of which will
not be impacted   Site determinations
were  reviewed  by the Washington  State
Office  of Archaeology  and   Historic
Preservation,  which concurred with  the
determinations.     Identified   heritage
resources will  be  protected   through
avoidance,  where  possible, and data
recovery, when avoidance is not possible.
Additional heritage resources identified
during  project implementation  will  be
protected  until  sites can be evaluated and
appropriate     protection    measures
implemented  (see  FEIS,  Section 4.16,
Heritage Resources).

Issue:   Effects  of Geochemistry and
Geotechnical

The potential for acid rock drainage and
leaching of metals is low for both waste
rock and tailings materials. The required
waste rock management plan is designed
to verify  baseline studies  and  prevent
potential  local   acid  or   "hot  spot"
development     The  required  water
monitoring plan will detect any localized
degradation that may occur and enable
corrective  measures  to  be  taken,  if
needed   (see  FEIS,  Section  2.12.5,
Geochemistry     Mitigation;     2.13.4
Geochemical  Monitoring;   and  3.3.3,
Geochemistry).

There  is  a low potential for damaging
seismic  activity  in  the project  area.
Tailings   and    Starrem   Reservoir
embankments   and  the   waste  rock
facilities will be designed to remain stable
under static conditions and to withstand
the maximum credible earthquake in the
area    (see    FEIS,   Section   4.4,
Geotechnical Considerations).
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-21
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
Issue:  Effects on Energy

The principle  energy products  used by
the  project will  be petroleum  (non-
renewable)  and  electricity  for mining
equipment,  motor   vehicles and  ore
processing.   Approximately 1.2 million
gallons of fuel and 63 million  kilowatt-
hours will be required annually under the
Selected Alternative (see FEIS, Section
4.20,    Energy   Consumption    and
Conservation).

Issue:  Effects of Noise

Modeled noise levels at residential areas
indicate  that  mine  traffic,  continuous
operations and blasting may be audible,
especially under  worst case conditions
(quiet  winter early  morning hours  with
easterly wind and inversion  conditions).
Modeled operational noise  levels were
below  applicable WADOE  daytime or
nighttime  noise  limits.   The potential
effects of noise on  wildlife  is  not  fully
known.   Some  wildlife  species  are
expected   to   habituate    to  regular
operational noise. Impacts will decrease
with distance  from  the  project   site.
Blasting will occur on a regular schedule
to  help  wildlife  habituate  (see  FEIS,
Section 4.12, Wildlife; and 4.13, Noise)

Issue:  Effects on Soils

The Selected  Alternative  will  disturb
approximately 788  acres.   Topsoil  and
other acceptable growth media will be
stockpiled or applied directly to reclaimed
areas.     Other  measures such   as
fertilization,     microbial     inoculation,
mulching, and erosion  protection  will
minimize impacts to soil productivity  in
the short term.  Nonetheless, disturbance
and   stockpiling   will  decrease  soil
productivity an estimated 5% for grasses
over 15 years and 10-15% for trees over
100  years (see  FEIS, Sections 2.11,
Reclamation  Measures;  2.12.12, Soils
Mitigation; and 4.5 Soils).

Issue:   Effects  on Surface and Ground
Water

Changes to ground and surface water
flows will  occur during and after mine
operations.     Effects   on   individual
drainage flows will be most pronounced
at   their   headwaters  where  mine
dewatering will occur and will be minor at
their confluence with Myers  or Toroda
Creeks. The greatest effect will occur at
the headwaters of Nicholson Creek in the
Gold Bowl drainage. This small drainage
will  incur a  reduction  of  82% of the
average  annual   flow  during  mine
operations, and an increase after closure
and  pit filling.   At its confluence with
Toroda Creek, Nicholson Creek flows are
expected to decrease by 1.2% or less
during  operations,  and  increase after
closure and pit filling  These post project
increases will  be  dependent on  the
WADOE water rights permits.  There will
be little effect  on the surface flows  in
Marias  Creek.  A decrease of 0.4%  is
expected in the net average  Marias Creek
flow  in  the upper  reaches during mine
operations and after mine closure and pit
filling.  A decrease of less  than 0.1% is
expected at the Marias and Toroda Creek
confluence during mine operations  and
after mine closure and pit filling.  Model-
ing indicates that a permanent  change of
water flow from Myers Creek  to Toroda
Creek will occur after mining ceases and
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-22
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
the open pit fills with water.  This change
will be less than a 1 % reduction in Myers
Creek and a less than  1% increase in
Toroda  Creek.   The Washington State
Department  of  Ecology  may   require
mitigation  for   this  change  in   the
hydrologic divide as part of water rights
permits. The need for this mitigation will
be determined during permitting.  Effects
in the FEIS are displayed assuming this
mitigation is not required  The negative
effects caused by stream depletion would
be reduced if this mitigation is required by
the State.

Ground  and surface water quality will be
protected by use  of best management
practices    during    operations    and
reclamation,  by  inclusion  of redundant
safety design features or other mitigating
measures,  by   regular  monitoring  of
surface and ground water throughout the
project area, and with a contingency for
water treatment (see FEIS, Sections 2.11,
Reclamation  Measures;    and   2 12,
Management and Mitigation Measures).
Modeling  of  final  pit  water  quality
indicates  that several metals or other
parameters may exceed WADOE aquatic
life or  ground   water criteria.   These
waters  may  require  treatment  prior to
discharge  to meet   applicable  water
quality criteria.   However, monitoring of
actual pit  water  quality during and  after
filling will determine whether treatment is
necessary (see FEIS,  Sections  4.6
Ground  Water, Springs and Seeps; and
4.7, Surface Water).

Issue: Reclamation

Final reclaimed slopes of mine facilities,
such as waste rock disposal areas and
the tailings embankment outslopes, will
create slopes that blend with surrounding
undisturbed topography and  generally
range from 2.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical)
to  3H:1V  or   flatter.    The  overall
topography of the reclaimed area will be
generally variable.  Sharp edges will be
rounded  and  straight  lines  will  be
softened to provide topography which
blends  in with  the surrounding  terrain.
Small, irregular swales will be formed on
the outslopes of the waste rock disposal
areas  during   regrading  to  break  up
constant slopes and straight lines. These
swales   are  anticipated  to   provide
protected  microsites  on south faces for
plant growth

Segmental reclamation will allow portions
of the mine disturbance to be reclaimed
early in the mine operation.   The initial
emphasis of re-vegetation  will  be to
conserve  soil materials,  with additional
goals being to provide wildlife forage and
reforestation. The required reclamation
monitoring  plan   will   ensure   that
reclamation success criteria are achieved
(see FEIS,  Sections 2.11 Reclamation
Measures; 4.18, Land Use/ Reclamation;
and 2 13, Monitoring Measures).

Issue    Hazardous  Chemicals/Health/
Safety

Protection of the public and the environ-
ment from cyanide and other hazardous
chemicals and the potential for hazard-
ous materials spills will be minimized by
a number of mitigation measures. These
requirements are designed  to provide
redundant containment designs;  regular
air and  water  monitoring;   specific
handling and transportation plans  and
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-23
                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
procedures  to prevent  spills  and  to
assure  safe transport  past  Beth and
Beaver  Lakes; and to insure that proper
handling  training    is   provided   to
employees.  Emergency countermeasure
and spill response plans and equipment
will also be required to minimize potential
public health or environmental  impacts
should a spill occur (see FEIS, Sections
2.12, Management and Mitigation; 2.13,
Monitoring Measures; and 4.22 Accidents
and Spills).

Issue: Effects on  Vegetation

Vegetation  will be  removed from  the
areas of mine facilities.   Merchantable
timber will be sold or, in part, reserved
along  with  unmerchantable fiber  for
mixing with redistributed soils or as large
woody debris on reclaimed surfaces. No
Federally    listed    threatened    or
endangered  plant species will be affected
by  the   Selected  Alternative.    Some
populations    of    Listera   borealis,
Botrychium  crenulatum and Platanthera
obtusata  (USDA   Pacific  Northwest
Region  sensitive  plant species) will  be
impacted. Loss of these populations are
unlikely to reduce the viability of these
species on the forest (see FEIS, Section
4.9,   Vegetation;   and   Appendix  J,
Biological Evaluation). Required noxious
weed treatment will  serve to  control,
contain and  eradicate new and potential
invader  noxious  weeds  (see  FEIS,
Section 4.9 Vegetation)

Issue:   Effects to  Wetlands,  Streams,
Springs and Seeps

The Selected  Alternative will  directly
affect 3.4 acres of wetlands. Other action
alternatives   would   directly   impact
between 0.90 to 5.40 acres of wetlands.
All  action alternatives would indirectly
affect or  possibly  affect  another 0.39
acres of wetlands.  The Selected Alter-
native will directly impact approximately
10,725  lineal feet of stream  channel  in
Marias Creek, Nicholson Creek, Starrem
Creek  and  the  Gold Bowl drainage.
Other alternatives directly effect between
7,100 to  12,225 lineal feet of  stream
channel during operations.   Impacts  to
springs and seeps would be similar for all
alternatives  (see FEIS,  Sections  4.6,
Ground Water,  Springs and  Seeps; 4.7,
Surface Water;  and  4 10, Wetlands).

The intent of the CORPS Section 404
(b)(1) permit,  to be documented in  a
separate Record of Decision,  will be  to
mitigate for the  loss of functions and
values to wetlands, streams,  springs and
seeps.  Flows  to the frog pond will be
reduced, during  operations, by up to 80%
by construction of the  north waste rock
disposal  area,   soil   stockpiles,   and
diversion channels.  After completion  of
reclamation, flows to the frog pond will be
similar  to  pre-operation   conditions.
During operations, if  changed flows to the
frog pond  affect  wetlands function,
mitigation  (including  possible  water
augmentation)   will  be  required   to
maintain the viability of this feature (see
FEIS,   Section   213.14,   Wetlands
Monitoring).   Flows  to  the nine-acre
wetlands will be reduced  by up  to 37%
during  operations and  26%  after the pit
has refilled.  These reductions  will not
cause   significant   direct  effects   to
wetlands  functions  and  values  in the
nine-acre wetland (see FEIS, Sections
4.7, Surface Water;  and 4.10 Wetlands).
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-24
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
Monitoring  will  track  the  nine-acre
wetland.  If monitoring shows adjustments
are necessary,  water augmentation or
other  appropriate   measures  will  be
implemented (see FEIS, Section 2.13.14,
Wetlands Monitoring).

Issue: Effects to Wildlife

The Selected Alternative  will result in
both short-term  and long-term effects to
wildlife. Proposed reclamation plans and
mitigation   measures   will   eventually
restore wildlife  habitat,  but not to the
same quality or quantity as pre-project
conditions.  While some impacts will be
permanent  (e.g.   much   of  the  pit
excavation),  others will  be  reversible
through reclamation.   Reclaimed areas
will  benefit  species   requiring   early
successional cover types in the  short
term.  Species requiring mature forest will
be  impacted  until  the  structure  and
function of mature interior forest develops
over the  long term  (see FEIS, Section
4.12, Wildlife). The Biological Evaluation
for the project in Appendix H of the FEIS
determined that:

•     The project is not likely to adversely
      effect  threatened  or  endangered
      species (grizzly bear,  gray wolf, bald
      eagle, peregrine falcon) or their critical
      habitat;

•     The project  may  cause effects to
      individual species of concern, but is
      not likely to have any adverse effects
      on populations;

•     The project  may  impact sensitive
      species or their habitat, but will not
      likely  contribute to a trend toward
      federal  listing  or  cause a  loss of
      viability to the population or species.
     The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
     concurred with these findings.

     Additional wildlife mitigation is expected
     to be  required by the State (see FEIS,
     Section 2.12.19,  Wildlife  and  Fish  -
     Private Land Enhancement).  The effects
     in the  FEIS are displayed assuming that
     this  additional mitigation is not required.
     The negative effects  to wildlife would be
     reduced  by any  additional mitigation
     required by the State.

     Issue:  Effects on Fish

     No fish habitat exists on site.  Short-term,
     local   increases   in   turbidity   and
     suspended  sediments may occur during
     initial  construction,  road  building  and
     reconstruction,    and   earth    moving
     activities in Marias and Nicholson Creek
     drainages,  which could result in short-
     term  loss   of   downstream   habitat.
     Mitigation measures  to control sediment
     will be implemented  prior to the start of
     construction   (see   FEIS,   Sections
     2.12.13.1, Erosion and Sediment Control;
     and  2.12.13.2,  Diversion Ditches  and
     Sediment  Traps).   The  potential  for
     sediment yield  will  be  reduced  once
     construction is complete. Short-term and
     long-term  impacts to  off-site fisheries
     during operations are  expected to be low,
     although    short-term   increases    in
     sediment in  local stream segments  may
     occur during reclamation. No short-term
     or long-term effects on fish resources are
     expected  from   potential   acid   rock
     drainage or the use of cyanide (see FEIS,
     Sections   3.3.3,   Geochemistry;   4.7,
     Surface  Water;   and  4.11,  Aquatic
     Habitats  and  Populations).   Potential
     water quality concerns from post closure
Crown Jewel Mine
ROD-25
                                                                       Record of Decision

-------
pit lake discharge is addressed above in
Issue:  Effects on  Surface  and Ground
Water.  The Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology  analysis   recommended
minimum stream flows for the project in
Myers  Creek, and will be considered in
Washington State Department of Ecology
water rights permits for new withdrawals
(see FEIS, Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology).

Issue:  Effects on Recreation and Scenic
Resources

Recreational opportunities  within  the
2,000  acre mine boundary will not be
available during the life of the project.
Additional  road  closures  outside  the
boundary,  increased  traffic from  mine
activities,  and   interruption of through
traffic  will  also  diminish  recreational
values   (see   FEIS,   Section  4.14,
Recreation). The mine facilities will meet
the "maximum modification" scenic quality
objective for the Buckhorn Mountain after
reclamation is complete and vegetation is
reestablished. Off site views from Toroda
Creek road, and Canada Highway 3 will
show the greatest contrast in terms of
texture and color during operations and
prior to re-vegetation. Nighttime lighting
and operational dust and traffic will also
effect  scenic quality.   Screening, and
design and color of facilities,  as well as
exterior  lighting  specifications will  be
required to minimize these  effects  as
much as practicable (see FEIS, Sections
2.12.17 and 4.15, Scenic Resources).

Issue:  Effects on Land Use

The Selected Alternative will alter the
current land use of approximately 2,000
acres from forest products, rangeland and
wildlife based management to minerals
management during the life of the project.
Mitigation is included to allow for use of
the project area  by wildlife  (see  FEIS
Section 2.12.7.4,  Livestock Fencing).
Reclamation will eventually return most of
the acreage to pre-mining uses. Potential
patenting  of project  mining claims may
effect ultimate land uses in the area (see
FEIS,   Section  4.18,    Land    Use/
Reclamation).

Issue:  Effects on Socioeconomics

The  Selected Alternative will result in a
peak   population    increase   during
operations of less than 2% (157 people)
of  the northeastern  Okanogan   and
western Ferry County area population.
This increase will result in an estimated
new school  enrollment  of  about  40
students which can be accommodated by
existing  facilities.   An  estimated  56
permanent new homes  are expected to
be constructed in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties  as  a result of the Selected
Alternative. Population increases will be
greater if the anticipated 80% local hire
by   the  Proponent  is   not  attained.
Approximately 144 direct and 110 indirect
jobs will  be  created  by  the  mining
operation. Total multi-year tax revenues
after expenditures are anticipated to be
$31.4 million

Based upon the above assumptions it is
anticipated that most social services will
not  require   additional   expansion to
accommodate the population increase.
Exceptions may include law enforcement
(addition of one full-time officer to patrol
Chesaw/Highlands    area)  and    the
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-26
                                                                     Record of Decision

-------
Chesaw-Molson   fire    district    (to
accommodate     the     potential
responsibilities for immediate emergency
medical  service  support).   It is also
possible that some social services such
as   alcohol   and   substance   abuse
programs  could   be impacted   if the
construction and/or operation personnel
consist of a disproportionate number of
young adult  males  and males without
families.  This is  more  likely to occur
during construction activities rather than
operations and reclamation (see FEIS,
Section 4.19.3, Socio-Economic,  Effects
Common to All Alternatives).

Issue: Effects on Transportation

Average daily employee, supply and
miscellaneous traffic  to the mine site will
vary  with  the  development  phase.
Employee traffic will be minimized during
operations by the use of a busing or van-
pooling program. The greatest traffic will
occur during construction with up to 305
trips per day.  This  number should  be
reduced to about 108 during operations
and 41 during reclamation (assumes 75%
of employees are bused).

With the potential increase in daily traffic
from  the  project,  it  is  reasonable  to
assume that the number of  accidents
would increase.  However, the increase in
accidents would probably not be directly
proportional to the  increase  in  traffic
because  of  the   mitigation  measures
requiring employee training on adherence
to speed limits and use of pilot vehicles
for hazardous materials  supply  trucks.
General public awareness of increased
traffic,  use  of trained drivers by trucking
companies, and upgrade of some roads
may further limit increased accidents (see
FEIS, Sections 2.12.14,  Transportation
Mitigation;  2.12.20, Training; and 4.17,
Transportation).

Factors  Other Than  Environmental
Consequences Considered

Economic factors are considered in all
NEPA decisions to some degree.  In the
case of locatable mining operations, the
Forest Service must specifically consider
the economics of the mining operation in
determining  the   reasonableness  of
surface protection  measures (36  CFR
228.5).    This was  accomplished  by
conducting   discounted   cash   flow
analyses on the action alternatives. The
results indicate that the net present value
of the Selected Alternative  will  not  be
substantially   reduced     over    the
Proponent's  original proposal.    The
Proponent's original  proposal  did  not
include   some  of  the  reclamation,
mitigation,   monitoring   and  financial
guarantee  measures included  in  the
Selected Alternative.

Efficiency of resource use is considered
in this decision. The efficient and fullest
utilization of an individual mineral deposit
is  generally   desirable  because   it
maximizes  use  of a finite  and  non-
renewable resource.  Maximizing mineral
recovery  at the mine will also minimize
the remaining in-ground resource and
reduce the  potential for re-entry and re-
mining at  a future date due to changes in
market conditions or technology.
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-27
                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
VI.     OTHER  ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

Seven  alternatives were considered in
detail.     Six  of  these  were  action
alternatives  which  evaluated  a  wide
range of component options.

ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION

Alternative  A  was   the   No  Action
alternative.  This alternative precluded
project development  and provides the
basis  and  existing  condition  against
which the other  action alternatives are
compared.  Final reclamation of the site
would  be implemented for exploration
disturbances approved under  previous
NEPA documents (see FEIS, Section 2.4,
Alternative A).

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative  C proposed  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 6 years- 1  year for construction,
4  years  of  operation,  and 1  year for
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  INCO
cyanide destruct process. Tailings would
be placed in a designed facility  at the
head of the Marias  Creek drainage.
Waste    rock    from    underground
development would be placed in a north
disposal  area.   Two  surface quarries
would be  required for rock material to
construct tailings embankments located in
the Marias Creek drainage and for backfill
in  the mine.  Employee busing would be
provided to the site from locations in or
near Oroville.  Supplies would be hauled
from Oroville to Chesaw and then via the
south access route to the Project  site.
This alternative  would produce about
60%  of  the   gold  compared  to the
Selected Alternative and would disturb
approximately  415  acres  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.6, Alternative C)

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would extract ore from the
north  portion of the ore body by surface
mining and  would mine the southern
portion of the ore zone by underground
methods.  The  operation would run 24
hours per day, employ  about 225 people
during  operation,  and   produce  an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per  day.
The  life  of the operation would  be 8
years- 1 year for construction, 6 years for
operation, and 1 year  for 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 tank  cyanidation  process and CIL
gold recovery.   Residual cyanide in the
tailings would be reduced using the INCO
cyanide destruct process.  Tailings would
be placed in a designed facility at the
head  of the  Marias  Creek  drainage.
Waste rock would be  placed  in a north
disposal area.   Some waste rock would
be used for backfill in the underground
mine.   Final reclamation  would include
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-28
                                                                   Record of Decision

-------
leaving the north part of the ultimate pit
open to partially fill with water,  and
eventually discharge to Nicholson Creek
via the Gold Bowl drainage.  Employee
busing would be provided to the site from
locations in or near Oroville.  Supplies
would be hauled from the south through
Wauconda,  Toroda  Creek and  Beaver
Canyon. This alternative would produce
about 80% of the gold compared to the
Selected Alternative and would  disturb
approximately 558  acres  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.7, Alternative D).

ALTERNATIVE E

Alternative E proposed an open pit mine
with 2 waste rock disposal areas located
in the same general areas as Alternative
B, but they were reconfigured to have
gentler slopes  and to avoid placement of
waste  rock  on  some steeper slopes.
Approximately 10.5 million tons of waste
rock from the south pit would be used to
partially refill  the north pit so that no
permanent post-mining lake  would be
formed.  The operation would  run 24
hours per day, employ about 144 people
during  operation,   and  produce  an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per day.
The life of the operation  would be 10
years: 1  year for construction, 8 years for
operation, and 1  year for 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 tank cyanidation process and  CIL
gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the
tailings would be reduced using the INCO
cyanide destruct process. 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.  Supplies would be hauled
from  the  south  through  Wauconda,
Toroda Creek and Beaver Canyon. This
alternative would produce about the same
amount  of  gold  as   the   Selected
Alternative    and    would     disturb
approximately  928 acres  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.8, Alternative E).

ALTERNATIVE F

Alternative F would consist of an open pit
mine  with  1   temporary  waste  rock
stockpile area located to the north of the
pit area. The mine would operate one 12
hour shift per day producing an average
of 1,500  tons  of ore per day.   The mill
would  operate 24 hours per day and
employ  125 people  during operations.
The life  of the operation would be  33
years: 1 year for construction, 16 years of
operation,  and  16 years to  complete
reclamation, that would primarily involve
backfilling the mine pit.  Crushing would
be  conducted  below   ground  level.
Grinding  and  milling  would  be above
ground.    Gold extraction would use
conventional milling with tank cyanidation
process and CIL gold recovery.  Residual
cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the  INCO cyanide destruct process.
Tailings would be placed in a  designed
facility in  the Nicholson Creek drainage.
Final reclamation would include returning
54 million cubic yards of waste to the final
pit.  Employee busing would be provided
to the  site from locations in  or  near
Oroville.  Supplies would be hauled from
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-29
                                                                    Record of Decision

-------
the south  through Wauconda,  Toroda
Creek  and  Beaver  Canyon.     This
alternative would produce about the same
amount  of  gold   as  the  Selected
Alternative    and     would    disturb
approximately  817  acres  (see  FEIS,
Section 2.9, Alternative F).

ALTERNATIVE G

Alternative G would consist of an open pit
mine  with  1   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  operation,   and  produce  an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per day
The  life of the  operation would be 10
years: 1 year for construction, 8 years for
operation, and  1  year for completion  of
most  reclamation.  Crushing  would be
conducted below ground  level. Grinding
and milling would be 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 value. The tailings from
the flotation process would be placed in
the designed tailing impoundment located
in the Nicholson Creek drainage.  Final
reclamation would  include  leaving the
north part  of  the ultimate  pit open  to
partially  fill with water,  and eventually
discharge  to Nicholson  Creek  via the
Gold  Bowl  drainage.   Employee busing
would  be  provided  to  the  site  from
locations in or  near Oroville.  Supplies
would be hauled from Oroville to Chesaw
and then via the south access route to the
Project  site.   This  alternative would
produce about 50% of the gold compared
to the Selected Alternative and would
disturb  approximately 893 acres  (see
FEIS, Section 2.10, Alternative G).


VII.    FINDINGS  REQUIRED BY
OTHER LAWS

This FEIS complies or is consistent with
all  applicable  laws  including but  not
limited to the following:

•     National Environmental Policy Act (see
      FEIS, Section 1.1, Introduction);

•     General Mining  Law of 1872,  as
      amended  (see  FEIS,  Section  1.3,
      Purpose and Need);

•     Clean Air Act (see FEIS, Section 4.1,
      Air Quality),

•     Endangered Species Act (see FEIS,
      Appendices  H,  I and J, Biological
      Evaluations);

•     Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see FEIS,
      Sections     2.12.13.3,    Cyanide
      Destruction;     2.13.5,     Wildlife
      Monitoring);

•     National Historic Preservation Act, as
      amended (see FEIS, Section 4.16,
      Heritage Resources);

•     Comprehensive     Environmental
      Response, Compensation and Liability
      Act  (see  FEIS,  Sections 2.12.3,
      Cyanide and Other Chemicals; 2.12.4,
      Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials,
      Fire Prevention, and First Aid; 2.12.5,
      Geochemistry;  2.12.13.3, Cyanide
      Destruction; and  2.12.13.4,  Tailings
      Disposal Facility);

•     Resource Conservation and Recovery
      Act   (see  FEIS,   Sections   2.11
      Reclamation Measures; and 2.12.21,
      Solid Waste Management);
Crown Jewel Mine
                                      ROD-30
                                                                      Record of Decision

-------
•     National Materials and Minerals Policy,
      Research and Development Act;

•     Federal Land Policy and Management
      Act; and

•     National Forest Management Act.

The  project, as  amended  herein,  is
consistent with the amended Okanogan
National  Forest  Land  and  Resource
Management Plan (see  FEIS, Section
2.1.5, Project  Alternative Comparison)
and the Inland Native Fish Strategy (see
FEIS, Section 4.11.8, Inland Native Fish
Strategy), and is in conformance with the
approved   BLM  Spokane   Resource
Management   Plan,    as   amended
December, 1992 (see FEIS, Section 1.7,
Spokane District Resource Management
Plan Consistency).

Compliance with the Clean Water Act will
be   ensured  through  adherence   to
Management and Mitigation  Measures
listed in 2.12 of the FEIS for non-point
sources,   including  the  use  of Best
Management  Practices   listed therein;
through Washington State Department of
Ecology's  permit approvals  for  point
sources;  and  the Record  of Decision
prepared  by the  U.  S.  Army Corps  of
Engineers   for   permits  under  their
jurisdiction.

No significant effects are  expected  to
floodplains,  prime  forest  land,   prime
range land, energy, American Indians,  or
cultural  resources.   These effects are
disclosed in the FEIS (see FEIS, Sections
3.2,   Topography/Physiography;   4.9
Vegetation;    and    4.16,   Heritage
Resources).   Effects on wetlands are
described in Issue: Effects to Wetlands,
Streams, Springs and Seeps above.  The
project will have no effect on prime farm
land,  women or other minorities,  civil
rights, or  any consumers, and will not
result   in   unnecessary   or   undue
degradation to the environment.

VIII.         ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Council   on   Environmental   Quality
Regulations at 40 CFR 1508.2(b) require
an agency to specify  the alternative or
alternatives which were considered to be
environmentally preferable in the process
of reaching its decision. The definition of
environmentally   preferable   is  the
alternative  which   causes  the  least
damage to the physical and  biological
environment, and which  best protects,
preserves,  and   enhances   historic,
cultural,   and   natural    resources.
Alternative A, the no-action alternative,
best meets this definition.  Alternative A
would result in reclamation of past mining
activities already approved under existing
NEPA  documents.     No   additional
disturbance would take place. Alternative
A was not selected because it would not
meet the purpose and need for the project
to respond to the Proponent's proposal.
Alternative A would not meet the General
Mining  Law of  1872,   as  amended,
because   feasible   alternatives  which
include reasonable mitigation to  protect
the resources are available

Alternative C is the most environmentally
preferable  of the   action alternatives.
Because    mining    would    occur
underground,  most surface  resources
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-31
                                                                   Record of Decision

-------
would be  left intact,  resulting  in fewer
direct effects (such as to vegetation), and
off-site impacts (such as sedimentation).
Alternative C was not selected  because
of substantial impacts to mine economics,
a reduction in mineral resource recovery,
and  because  environmental   effects
associated   with   surface   mining
alternatives could be addressed fully or in
part    by   reasonable   reclamation,
mitigation or compensatory requirements
(See FEIS, Section 2.15, Comparison of
Alternatives    and     Chapter    4,
Environmental Consequences).

IX.  ADMINISTRATIVE  APPEAL
RIGHTS

FOREST SERVICE

This  decision  is subject   to  appeal
pursuant to  Forest Service 36 CFR 215
Regulations for those actions on Forest
Service   System   lands   or  lands
administered by the Forest Service (see
Figure ROD-2,  Land Status Map,  and
Figure ROD-3, Selected Alternative Map).
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     newspaper
(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

Those portions of this decision that affect
Forest  Service   System  Lands  or
administered  lands are also subject to
appeal by the Proponent  under  Forest
Service 36 CFR  251  Regulations.  The
Proponent may appeal under 251 or 215,
but not both.  Appeal under 251 must
follow the filing procedures in 251.88 and
must meet all the requirements in 251.90,
including a statement of the facts of the
dispute and issues  raised by the appeal.
The   appeal   must   include  specific
references to any law, regulation or policy
that  the Proponent believes has been
violated.  The appeal must be in  writing
and must be postmarked and sent to the
Regional Forester at the above address
within 45 days of publication of the notice
of  decision  for  this  project  in the
Wenatchee World. The Proponent is also
required to simultaneously send a copy of
the appeal to the project Deciding Officer:

   Sam Gehr
   Okanogan National Forest Supervisor
   1240 S. Second Ave.
   Okanogan, WA 98840-9723

The  appeal period  for both 215 and 251
appeals is 45 days and begins the day
following  publication of the legal notice
documenting   the   decision  in  the
Wenatchee World.

BUREAU OF  LAND MANAGEMENT

Only those actions  pertaining  to the
public lands administered by the BLM and
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD-32
                                                                   Record of Decision

-------
subject to  BLM  jurisdiction  may be
appealed   under  BLM   administrative
appeal rights (see Figure ROD-2, Land
Status Map, and Figure ROD-3, Selected
Alternative Map).

The  operator  (Battle  Mountain  Gold
Company   and   Crown   Resources
Corporation) may appeal this decision to
the Oregon-Washington State Director,
BLM,  under   43  CFR  3809.4,  and
thereafter, to the Interior Board of Land
Appeals (IBLA), Office of Hearings and
Appeals, pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4 if the
State Director's  decision is adverse to the
operator's appeal.  If an appeal to the
State Director  is taken, the  operator's
Notice of Appeal  and  Statement  of
Reasons must be filed in writing within 30
days after  receipt of  service on  the
operator with:

      District Manager
      Spokane  District
      Bureau of Land Management
      1103 N. Fancher
      Spokane, WA 99212

Any  other parties  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 the
enclosed  Form 1842-1. If an appeal is
taken, the notice of appeal must be filed
with the BLM officer listed above within
30 days of publication of this decision in
the Federal Register and with.

      Interior Board of Land Appeals
      Office of Hearings and Appeals
      4015 Wilson Blvd.
      Arlington, VA, 22203
     and the

            Office of the Regional Solicitor
            Department of Interior
            500 N.E. Multnomah Street, Suite 607
            Portland, Oregon 97232

     A  party  wishing   to   suspend   the
     effectiveness of this decision during the
     time the appeal is reviewed must petition
     for such a stay at the time the appeal is
     filed and must include that petition with
     the  filings  with  the  Bureau  of Land
     Management  District Office, the  Interior
     Board of Land Appeals and the Office of
     the Regional Solicitor of the Department
     of Interior.

     A petition for a stay of this decision  is
     required  to show sufficient justification
     based on the standards listed below.  If a
     stay is requested, the proponent of the
     stay has the burden of showing that the
     decision  appealed  is in error and that the
     stay  should  be  granted.   Except  as
     otherwise provided  by  law or other
     pertinent regulation, a petition for a stay
     of a decision pending appeal shall show
     sufficient justification  based   on  the
     following standards:

     •     The relative harm to the parties if the
            stay is granted or denied;

     •     The  likelihood  of  the  appellant's
            success on the merits;

     •     The  likelihood  of immediate  and
            irreparable  harm if the stay is not
            granted; and,

     •     Whether the public interest favors
            granting the stay.
Crown Jewel Mine
ROD-33
Record of Decision

-------
 X.  IMPLEMENTATION

 The Forest Service 36 CFR 215 appeal
 regulations require that implementation of
 this project be automatically stayed until
 5 days after  the close  of the  appeal
 period if no appeal is filed. If an appeal is
 filed, the decision will 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 will  not be
 approved   until   the  Forest  Service's
 internal administrative review process
 has been  completed.   Forest  Service
 approval  of  the  Plan  of  Operations,
 Special Use  Authorizations, and Road
 Use  Permits   for   the  project   is
 implementation of the project and, as
 such,  are not subject  to appeal under 36
 CFR215.8(b).

 The decision affecting BLM administered
 lands  will be in full force and effect as of
 the date of signing  of this Record  of
 Decision and will  remain in effect during
 any appeal unless a written request for a
 stay is granted pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21.
 The full force and effect provisions only
 apply to the approval of the Selected
 Alternative and do not pertain to initiating
 actions under a Plan of Operations.

 The Proponent is required to prepare a
 revised Plan of Operations and financial
 guarantee estimate that fully incorporates
 all of the requirements of this 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  guarantee will
 be addressed in a separate  appealable
 decision.

 For further information  about this project,
 contact   Phil  Christy,  Project   Team
 Leader,  Tonasket Ranger District, One
 West Winesap, Tonasket, WA   98855
 (509) 486-5137,  or Brent Cunderla,  Team
 Leader, Wenatchee Resource Area BLM
 Office,  915  N.  Walla  Walla  Street,
 Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509)665-2100.
SAM GEHR
Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
 OSEPfl BUESING
Spokane District Manager/'
Bureau of Land Management
6ATE
                                                                       7
Crown Jewel Mine
                                     ROD- 34
                                                                   Record of Decision

-------
Form 1842-1
(February 1985)
             UNITED STATES
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
     BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                     INFORMATION ON TAKING APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF LAND APPEALS
                                           DO NOT APPEAL UNLESS
                                        1.  This decision is adverse to you,
                                                     AND
                                        2.  You believe it is incorrect
                      IF YOU APPEAL, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MUST BE FOLLOWED
1. NOTICE OF APPEAL
 2. WHERE TO FILE
      NOTICE OF APPEAL
Within 30 days file a Notice of Appeal in the office which issued this decision (see
43 CFR Sees. 4.411 and 4.413).  You may state your reasons for  appealing,  if you
desire.
BUREAU  OF LAND MANAGEMENT
SPOKANE DISTRICT OFFICE
1103 N.  FANCHER
SPOKANE, WA   99212-1275
      SOLICITOR
         ALSO COPY TO
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  THE  INTERIOR
OFFICE  OF THE SOLICITOR
500 N.E.  MULTNOMAH  STREET, SUITE 607
PORTLAND, OR   97232
 3.  STATEMENT OF REASONS
      SOLICITOR
         ALSO COPY TO
 4.  ADVERSE PARTIES
 5.  PROOF OF SERVICE
 Within 30 days after filing the Notice of Appeal,  file a complete statement  of the
 reasons why you are appealing.  This must be filed with the United States Department
 of the Interior.  Office of the Secretary,  Board of Land Appeals, 4015 Wilson Blvd.,
 Arlington, Virginia 22203 (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.412 and 4.413).  If you fully stated your
 reasons for  appealing when filing the Notice of Appeal, no  additional statement  is
 necessary.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  THE  INTERIOR
OFFICE  OF THE SOLICITOR
500 N.E.  MULTNOMAH  STREET, SUITE 607
PORTLAND, OR   97232

Within 15 days after each document is filed, each adverse party named in the decision
and the Regional Solicitor or Field Solicitor having jurisdiction over the State in which
the appeal  arose must be served with a copy of:  (a) the Notice of Appeal, (b) the State-
ment of Reasons, and (c) any other documents filed (see 43 CFR Sec. 4.413).  Service
will be made upon the Associate  Solicitor, Division  of  Energy  and Resources, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20240, instead of  the Field or Regional  Solicitor when appeals  are taken
from decisions of the Director (WO-100).

Within 15 days after any document is  served on an adverse party, file proof of  that
service with the United  States Department of the Interior,  Office of the  Secretary,
Board of Land  Appeals, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22203.  This may con-
sist of a certified or registered mail "Return Receipt Card" signed by the adverse party
(see 43 CFR Sec. 4.401(c)(2)).
 Unless these procedures are followed your appeal will be subject to dismissal (see 41 CFR Sec  4.402).
 communications lire identified by serial number of the case being appealed
                                                           Be certain that  all
 NOTE:  A document is not filed until it is actually received in the proper office (see 41 CFR Sec. 4.401(a))

-------
                       SUBPART 1821.2—OFFICE HOURS; TIME AND PLACE FOR FILING
Sec. 1821.2-1  Office hours of  State Offices,  (a)  State
Offices  and the  Washington Office of  the  Bureau  of
Land Management are open  to  the public for  the  filing
of  documents  and  inspection  of  records  during the
hours  specified  in  this  paragraph  on Monday  through
Friday of each week, with  the  exception of those days
where  the  office may be closed because of a national
holiday  or  Presidential or  other administrative order.
The hours  during  which  the  State  Offices   and the
Washington  Office are open  to  the public for  the  filing
of documents and inspection of  records are from 10 a.m.
to  4  p.m.,  standard  time  or  daylight  saving  time,
whichever  is in effect at the city in which each office
is located.
Sec. 1821.2-2(d) Any document required or permitted to
be filed under the regulations of this chapter, which is
received in the  State Office or the  Washington Office,
either  in  the mail  or  by personal  delivery  when  the
office is not open to the public  shall be  deemed  to be
filed as of the  day and  hour the  office next opens to
the public.

   (e)  Any document required  by  law,  regulation,  or
decision to be filed within a stated period, the last day
of which falls on a day the State Office or the Washing-
ton Office is  officially  closed, shall be  deemed  to  be
timely  filed if it is received  in the appropriate office on
the next day the office is open to the public.
    U.S. Govetnrent Printing Office:  1988-573-017/81373/R8

-------
                   United States Department of the Interior

                             BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
                                    Spokane Discnct Office
                                       1103 N Fanchsr
                                  Spokane, Washington 99212-1275
IN REPLY R£FERTO
WMP-130-88-041 W
3809(134)
                                     January 24,1997
   In Chapter IX. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL RIGHTS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT section on page
   ROD-33 (left column) there is an incorrect statement in the following paragraph:

                         Any other parties 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 the enclosed form 1842-
                         1.  If an appeal is taken,  the notice
                         of appeal must be filed with the  BLM
                         officer listed above within 30  days of
                         publication  of this decision in the
                         Federal Register and with:
   In the last sentence of the paragraph above the underlined words "this decision" are incorrect and hereby
   substituted with "the Notice of Availability of the ROD."
   The entire Crown Jewel Mine-Record of Decision will not be published in the Federal Register, only the notice
   of availability of the Record of Decision and Final EIS.
                                        Sincerely,
                                        Joseph K. Buesing
                                        District Manager

-------