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
IPOWERLINEJsc~^-
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 1821.2OFFICE 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
------- |