300S05900A
Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service
D
ENVIRONMENTAL
«*>*.» IMPACT STATEMENT
Department of Ecology
ECOLOGY
JUNE 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Okanogan County, Washington
SUMMARY Assembled By:
EnglOMrlng * En*onm«M«l feniteM
-------
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Department of Ecology
Tonasket Ranger District Washington State
1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
SUMMARY FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
June 30, 1995
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed for your review is the summary for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown Jewel Project) proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company and
Crown Resource Corporation (jointly referred to as the "Proponent"). This document summarizes the
environmental effects of the Proponent's plan to construct and operate a gold and silver mining and
milling project near Chesaw, in Okanogan County, Washington and alternatives to that plan.
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) are
appreciative of all of the comments, suggestions, and ideas received during scoping. To aid in the
preparation of the draft EIS, we held a series of public meetings in 1992, 1993, and 1994. We have
scheduled additional public meetings in July and August of 1995. We want to thank you for your
participation in this Project and hope that you find the analysis responsive to your concerns.
Besides the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proponent's Plan (Alternative B), we examined
5 other alternatives (Alternatives C through G) in the completion of the draft EIS. In these other
alternatives, we analyzed underground mining, a combination of underground and surface mining, partial
and complete backfilling of the mine pit, differing locations for waste rock and tailings, a decreased
production and operating schedule, and a non-cyanide milling process known as flotation. This wide
array of alternatives was designed to respond to comments received during the scoping process.
Some of the key issues for this proposal include: the potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals
to enter the environment; the potential effects on water availability; changes in land use which affect
wildlife, timber production, grazing and recreation; changes to the local social and economic structure;
and assessing the short-term losses of existing uses of the land and the ability to reclaim the land in the
long-term to approximate pre-Project uses.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prefer a modified Alternative E utilizing an
open-pit mine that would be partially backfilled during operations; operate year-around, 24 hours per
day, 7 days per week, lasting about 10 years; utilizing a tank cyanidation ore processing method with
INCO process cyanide destruction; a north waste rock disposal area at 3H:1 V slopes for reclamation;
and a tailings facility in the Marias Creek drainage. This alternative would be closest to Alternative E
except all waste rock would be placed to the north of the pit similar to Alternative G. This alternative is
estimated to physically disturb about 840 acres, decreasing the area of disturbance of Alternative E by
about 85 acres. Because the modifications to Alternative E were not identified until late in the draft EIS
process, and because the modified components in the new alternative are part of other alternatives, the
draft EIS does not display a separate modified Alternative E. This alternative will be a stand alone
alternative in the final EIS. Selection of the preferred alternative in the final EIS will be made with
consideration given to public input on the draft EIS and any additional analysis undertaken between the
draft EIS and final EIS.
WADOE has decided not to select a preferred alternative in the draft EIS. This decision is based on
WADOE's desire to assure an objective analysis of all alternatives and information from comments
during the remainder of the environmental review process. Ultimately the WADOE (and other
Washington State and local agencies) will use information from the final EIS during decision making for
state and local permits for the Crown Jewel Project.
-------
Draft EIS
Crown Jewel Project
June 30, 1995
Page 2
The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers is focused on eliminating or minimizing impacts to wetlands and
waters of the U.S.
If you would like to review the entire draft EIS, you may pick up or review a copy at either the Forest
Service offices in Tonasket or Okanogan, Washington, or the WADOE offices in Olympia or Yakima,
Washington.
If you cannot pick up a copy, you may leave a message at 509-486-5137 (Forest Service) or 360-407-
6925 (WADOE) and a copy will be mailed to you. Copies of the draft EIS will also be available for
review in local libraries in Omak, Tonasket, Oroville, Brewster, Seattle (main branch), Chelan, Colville,
Grand Coulee, Wenatchee, Republic, Twisp, and Winthrop. Further locations where copies of the draft
EIS will also be available for review include BLM offices in Spokane and Wenatchee; the British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks office in Victoria, British Columbia; Environment
Canada in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and the Village Office in Midway, British Columbia.
With the release of the draft EIS, we again invite your comments, suggestions, and ideas regarding this
document. We will take comments on the draft EIS for 60 days (45 days plus the 15 day extension
that can be granted under NEPA and SEPA). Comments must be postmarked by August 29, 1995.
Please include your name, address, telephone number, organization, title of project on which you are
commenting, and specific facts and supporting reasons for the decision makers to consider.
We plan to hold 2 public information meetings to explain the proposal, a formal public hearing to receive
comments on the proposal, and 2 field trips to the Crown Jewel Project site. The public information
meetings are scheduled for July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington; and July 27, 1995 in Tonasket,
Washington from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. The formal public hearing, to take comments on the draft EIS, is
scheduled for August 17, 1995 in Tonasket at 7:00 p.m. The field trips are scheduled for July 29 and
August 5, 1995 starting from the Oroville high school parking lot at 9:00 a.m. and lasting about 6
hours. Please bring a sack lunch for the field trips.
Further information on the Crown Jewel Project can be obtained by contacting the Project leaders, Phil
Christy, at the Forest Service Tonasket Ranger District Office, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington,
98855, phone (509) 486-5137 or Patricia Betts, at the Olympia office of WADOE, P.O. Box 47703,
Olympia, Washington, 98504, phone (360) 407-6925. Please leave a message if these individuals are
not available.
Respectfully submitted,
.s&eLsmj
SAM GEHR P/iTSPURGir
Forest Supervisor R« gWial Direc
Okanogan National Forest CeVrcral Region
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Washington Department of Ecology
-------
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Crown Jewel Mine Okanogan County, Washington
June 1995
Lead Agencies: U.S.D.A. Forest Service - Okanogan National Forest
Washington State Department of Ecology
Cooperating
Agencies: U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Responsible Officials: Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director
Okanogan National Forest Central Regional Office
1240 South Second Avenue 106 South 6th Avenue
Okanogan, Washington 98840 Yakima, Washington 98902
For Further Information Phil Christy, NEPA Coordinator Patricia Belts, SEPA Coordinator
Contact: 1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
Telephone: (509)486-5137 Telephone: (360)407-6925
Abstract: The Crown Jewel Project draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the physical, biological, social, and
economic resources that would potentially be affected by the proposed Project. The primary state and federal action consists
of the approval of all necessary permits to construct and operate the Crown Jewel Project mine and mill. Some of the key
issues for this proposal include: the potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals to enter the environment; the potential
effects on water availability; changes in land use which affect wildlife, timber production, grazing and recreation; changes to
the local social and economic structure; and assessing the short-term loss of existing uses of the land and the ability to
reclaim the land in the long-term to approximate pre-Project uses. The Project, as proposed by Battle Mountain Gold
Company, would consist of a surface mine, a mill to process the ore using tank cyanidation, 2 waste rock disposal areas,
miscellaneous surface support facilities, a tailings retention impoundment in Marias Creek, access roads, new power
transmission lines, water pipelines, and a water supply reservoir in Starrem Creek. Alternatives have been developed in this
draft EIS to alter, eliminate, or mitigate environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. These alternatives
include: a no-action alternative (Alternative A); Battle Mountain's proposed action (Alternative B); an underground mining
alternative with above ground crushing and tailings disposal in Marias Creek (Alternative C); an alternative that proposes to
use both underground mining techniques and a surface mine with tailings disposal in Marias Creek (Alternative D); an
alternative with a surface mine, Marias Creek tailings impoundment, 2 waste rock disposal areas and partial back-fill of the pit
(Alternative E); an alternative with a surface mine, Nicholson Creek tailings impoundment, a temporary north waste rock
disposal area, complete backfill of the pit and 12 hour per day mining operations (Alternative F); and an alternative consisting
of a surface mine, Nicholson Creek tailings facility and on-site flotation milling (Alternative G). Project components that vary
between alternatives include tailings impoundment locations, waste rock disposal area locations, underground and surface
mining, different milling processes, and reclamation options, including complete or partial backfilling of the mine pit.
The Forest Service and BLM prefer a modified Alternative E utilizing an open-pit mine that would be partially backfilled during
operations; operate year-around, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, lasting about 10 years; utilizing a tank cyanidation ore
processing method with INCO process cyanide destruction; a north waste rock disposal area at 3H:1V slopes for reclamation;
and a tailings impoundment in the Marias Creek drainage. This alternative would be closest to Alternative E except all waste
would be placed to the north of the pit similar to Alternative G.
Comment Period: The comment period on the draft EIS will be 60 days (45 +15 day extension that can be granted under
NEPA and SEPA) from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register and public notice is given
in newspapers of local circulation. Comments must be postmarked no later than August 29, 1995.
Important Notice: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service (or the Washington Department of Ecology) with their
comments during the review period of the draft EIS. This will enable the Forest Service and the Washington Department of
Ecology to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final
EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in
the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. vs. NRDC 435 U.S. 519. 553 (1978). Environmental objections that
could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final EIS. City of Angoon
vs. Model (9th Circuit, 1966) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. vs. Harris, 490f. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Comments on the draft EIS should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the
alternatives discussed (40 CFR1503.3).
The State's Environmental Policy Act provides similar guidelines regarding commenting (WAC 197-1 1-545 and WAC 197-1 1-
550).
Comments to the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS should be sent to the Tonasket Ranger District, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket,
Washington 98855, and should be postmarked no later than August 29, 1995.
-------
-------
FACT SHEET
Project Title: Crown Jewel Mine
Name and Address of Proponent (With Proposed Date for Implementation):
Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Resource Corporation
P.O. Box 1243 1225 17th Street, Suite 1500
624 Central Avenue Denver, CO 80202
Oroville, Washington 98844
Battle Mountain Gold Company proposes to begin construction ^n late spring of 1996 with mill start-up in 1997.
Name and Address of Lead Agency Responsible Officials:
Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Washington Department of Ecology U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Central Regional Office Okanogan National Forest
106 South 6th Avenue 1240 South Second Ave.
Yakima, Washington 98902 Okanogan, Washington 98840
Contact Persons for Lead Agencies:
Ms. Patricia Belts, SEPA Coordinator Mr. Phillip Christy, NEPA Coordinator
Washington Department of Ecology Tonasket Ranger District
P.O. Box 47703 1 West Wmesap
Olympia, Washington 98504-7703 Tonasket, Washington 98855
Telephone: (360)407-6925 Telephone: (509)486-5137
List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:
Forest Service
1. Plan of Operations
2. Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
1. Plan of Operations
2. Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)
Army Corps of Engineers
1. Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge and Fill)
Environmental Protection Agency
1. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
2. Review of Section 404 Permit
3. Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7)
2. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Consultation
Federal Communications Commission
1. Radio Authorizations
Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
1. Explosives User Permit
-------
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1. Mine Identification Number
2. Legal Identity Report
3. Miner Training Plan Approval
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
2. State Waste Discharge Permit
3. General Industrial Stormwater Permit
4. Water Quality Standards Modification
5. Authorization to Change Existing Water Rights
6. Water Right Permits (Surface and Ground Water)
7. Reservoir Permit
8. Dam Safety Permits
9. Water Quality Certification (Section 401 - Federal Clean Water Act)
10. Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
11. Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
12. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air Quality)
13. Dangerous Waste Permit
14. Burning Permit
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADIMR)
1. Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
2. Forest Practices Application (Private and State lands)
3. Burning Permit (Fire Protection and Slash Disposal)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW)
1. Hydraulic Project Approval
Washington Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1. Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966)
Washington Department of Health
1. Sewage Disposal Permit
2. Public Water Supply Approval
Okanogan County
1. Shoreline Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Zoning Requirements
4. Building Permits
5. Maximum Environmental Noise Levels
6. Road Construction and/or Realignment
Okanogan County Health District
1. Solid Waste Handling
2. Sewage Disposal Permit
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
1. Power Service Contact
-------
Authors and Principal Contributors:
The following are Agency individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation of the
Crown Jewel Project draft EIS:
Forest Service
Mel Bennett - Forest Hydrologist
Craig Bobzien - District Ranger
William Butler - Engineer
Jessie Childs Dole - Landscape Architect, Recreation
Phil Christy - NEPA Coordinator
Dick Coppock - Mineral Field Inspector
Mark Deleon - Cultural Resources
Oren B. Erickson - Forest Landscape Architect
Jan Flatten - Forest NEPA Coordinator
George Halekas - Wildlife Biologist
Jean A. Lavell - Wildlife Biologist
Rod Lentz - Area Mining Geologist
Larry Loftis - Botanist
Don Lyon - Planning/Minerals Staff Okanogan National Forest
Kenneth J. Radek - Forest Soil Scientist
William Randall - Supervisory Forestry Technician
John Ridlington - Mineral Coordinator
Don Rose - District Silviculturist, District Ranger
Joe Sanchez - Timber Management, Ranger, Soils, Water Air Quality and Lands Staff Officer
Pete Soderquist - District Ranger
James V. Spotts - Fisheries Biologist
Kent Woodruff - Wildlife Biologist
Elaine Zieroth - Wildlife Biologist, District Ranger
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)
William Bafus - Economist
Bob Barwin - Water Quality Supervisor
Patricia Betts - SEPA Coordinator
Jerald LaVassar - Geotechnical Engineer
Tom Luster - Water Quality Certification
Tom Mackie - Hydrogeology
Katherine March - Wetlands Specialist
Andy McMillan - Wetlands Specialist
Robert L. Raforth - Hydrogeologist
Fred Rajala - Water Resources
Robert D. Swackhamer - Air Quality
Polly Zehm - Hazardous Waste Reduction and Management
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Rich Baily - Archaeologist
George Brown - Geologist (Asst. Project Manager BLM)
Pamela Camp - Botanist
Ralph Cornwall - District Forester
Kelly Courtright - District Mining Engineer
Brent Cunderla - Geologist (Team Leader BLM}
Al Gardner - Silviculturist
Neal Hedges - Wildlife Biologist
Joel "Jake" Jakabosky - Environmental Protection Specialist
Tom Olsen - Geological Engineer (Hydrology)
Dana Peterson - Range Conservationist
Judy Thompson - Archaeologist
Bob Troiano - Hydrologist
Gary Yeager - Planning and Environmental Coordinator
-------
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR)
Ray Lasmanis - Manager of Mining, Geology & Reclamation
David Norman - Reclamation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tim Erkel - NEPA Compliance & Permitting
Tom Mueller - Chief, Regulatory Branch
The following are Contract individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation of the
Crown Jewel Project draft EIS:
TerraMatrix Inc.
Rich Burtell - Geochemistry/Hydrology
Karen Conrath - Graphics
Susan Corser - Visuals, Recreation and Land Use
Alan Czarnowsky - Project Manager
Jay James - Assistant Project Manger
Alan Krause - Principal-in-Charge, Geotechnical
Suzanne Maddux - Document Coordination/Word Processing
Joe Nagengast - Graphics
Tim Smith - Graphics/Maps
Archaeological and Historical Services
Keo Boreson - Historical and Cultural
Dr. Jerry Galm - Archeology, Historical and Cultural
Charles Luttrell - Archaeology, Historical and Cultural
A.G. Crook Company
George Berscheid - Vegetation and Wetlands, Streams and Fisheries
Philip Lee - Wildlife
Thomas Melville Sr. - Fisheries Programs Director
Rita Mroczek - Wetlands Program Manager
Cedar Creek Associates
Steve Long - Soils
Mike Phelan - Wildlife Biologist
ENSR Environmental
James Wilder - Air Quality/Meteorology and Noise
Hydro-Geo Consultants
Joe Frank - Surface Water Hydrology
Janet Shangraw - Water Quality/Water Rights
Vladimir Straskraba - Hydrogeology
Schafer and Associates
William M. Schafer - Principal, Soil Scientist
Ed Spotts - Senior Soil Chemist/Geochemist
E.D. Hovee and Company
Eric Hovee - Socioeconomics
John Koleda - Socioeconomics
-------
Cascade Environmental Services
John Blum - Fisheries Biologist
Jean Caldwell - Fisheries Biologist
Beak Consultants Incorporated
Susan Barnes - Wildlife Biologist
Randy Floyd - Wildlife Biologist
Chuck Howe - Biologist/Forester
Paul Whitney - Terrestrial Ecologist
A listing of these individuals pertinent experience is set forth in Chapter 5.0, List of Preparers.
Date of Issue of Draft EIS: June 30, 1995
Date Comments Due: August 29, 1995
Public Meetings:
Two public information meetings to explain the proposal, a formal public hearing to receive comments on the proposal,
and 2 field trips to the Project site are planned during July and August. The public information meetings are schedulec
for July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington; and July 27, 1995 in Tonasket, Washington from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. The
formal public hearing, to take comments on the draft EIS, is scheduled for August 17, 1995 in Tonasket, Washington
at 7:00 p.m. The field trips are scheduled for July 29 and August 5, 1995 starting at 9:00 a.m. from the Oroville high
school parking lot and lasting about 6 hours. Bring a sack lunch for the field trips.
Date of Issue of Final EIS:
Projected for March 1996.
Agency Action:
The primary State and Federal actions consists of the approval of necessary plans and permits to construct and
operate the Crown Jewel Project mine and mill. Permit application processing is proceeding concurrently with
preparation of this draft EIS. No State permits may be issued prior to 7 days after the final EIS is published. No
Federal approvals can be issued or Federal permits approved until a minimum of 50 days after the publication of the
Records of Decision (36 CFR 215).
Subsequent Environmental Review:
To avoid unnecessary duplication, this draft EIS is being prepared under requirements of both the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Lead agencies (WADOE & Forest
Service) in coordination with cooperating agencies WADNR, BLM, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have worked
together in order that this document would contain the information they need to evaluate and address environmental
effects during decision making and meet their statutory requirements.
EIS Availability:
Single copies of this draft EIS are available from the WADOE offices in Olympia and Yakima, Washington and the
Forest Service offices in Tonasket and Okanogan, Washington.
The WADOE is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability,
age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam Era veteran's status or sexual
orientation.
If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Patricia Betts
at (360) 407-6925 (voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD).1
-------
-------
Prepared by:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Department of Ecology
Tonasket Ranger District Washington State
1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
CROWN JEWEL MINE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
June 1995
Assembled by:
TerraMatrix (formerly ACZ Inc.)
P.O. Box 774018
1475 Pine Grove Road, Suite 109
Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
-------
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION S-1
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION S-1
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED S-1
1.3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE S-1
1.4 KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS S-4
1.4.1 Geology and Geotechnical Considerations S-4
1.4.2 Geochemistry S-6
1.4.3 Soils S-6
1.4.4 Surface Water and Ground Water S-6
1.4.5 Reclamation S-6
1.4.6 Use of Hazardous Chemicals S-7
1.4.7 Vegetation S-7
1.4.8 Wetlands S-7
1.4.9 Wildlife Habitat and Populations S-7
1.4.10 Socioeconomics S-8
1.5 ISSUES THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO ALTERNATIVE DESIGN S-8
1.5.1 Air Quality S-8
1.5.2 Heritage Resources and Native American Issues S-8
1.5.3 Energy S-9
1.5.4 Noise S-9
1.5.5 Fish Habitat and Populations S-9
1.5.6 Recreation S-9
1.5.7 Land Use S-9
1.5.8 Scenic Resources S-9
1.5.9 Health/Safety S-9
1.5.10 Transportation S-9
2.0 ALTERNATIVES S-10
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS S-10
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES S-10
2.3 RECLAMATION S-23
2.4 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION S-27
2.5 MONITORING S-29
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT S-30
3.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE S-30
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY S-30
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY S-30
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS S-31
3.5 SOILS S-31
3.6 SURFACE WATER S-32
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS S-32
3.8 GROUND WATER S-33
3.8.1 Bedrock Water Quality S-33
3.8.2 Glacial Sediment Water Quality S-34
3.8.3 Historic Mining Influence on Ground Water S-34
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES S-35
3.10 VEGETATION S-35
3.11 WETLANDS S-35
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES S-36
3.13 WILDLIFE S-36
3.14 NOISE S-37
3.1 5 RECREATION S-37
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES S-37
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-ii SUMMARY Ju.-ie
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES S-38
3.18 TRANSPORTATION S-38
3.19 LAND USE S-38
3.20 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT S-39
3.20.1 Population S-39
3.20.2 Housing S-39
3.20.3 Employment S-40
3.20.4 Income S-40
3.20.5 Community & Public Services S-40
3.20.6 Land Ownership S-42
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES S-43
4.1 AIR QUALITY S-43
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY S-43
4.3 GEOLOGY/CHEMISTRY S-50
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS S-50
4.5 SOILS S-50
4.6 GROUND WATER S-50
4.7 SURFACE WATER S-51
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS S-52
4.9 VEGETATION S-54
4.10 WETLANDS S-54
4.11 AQUATIC RESOURCES S-55
4.12 WILDLIFE S-55
4.13 NOISE S-56
4.14 RECREATION S-56
4.1 5 SCENIC RESOURCES S-57
4.16 HERITAGE RESOURCES S-57
4.17 TRANSPORTATION S-57
4.18 LAND USE/RECLAMATION S-58
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT S-58
4.20 MINING ECONOMICS S-59
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page No.
S-1 List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals S-5
S-2 Summary of Alternative B S-1 5
S-3 Summary of Alternative C S-16
S-4 Summary of Alternative D S-17
S-5 Summary of Alternative E S-21
S-6 Summary of Alternative F S-22
S-7 Summary of Alternative G S-25
S-8 Alternative Comparison Summary S-26
S-9 Acreage Summary S-27
S-10 Summary of Impacts by Alternative For Each Issue S-44
S-11 Estimated Water Usage Requirements S-53
S-12 Traffic Summary by Road S-59
S-13 Summary of Environmentally Hazardous Materials S-59
S-14 Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action Alternatives S-60
S-1 5 Anticipated Population Increase S-60
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page No.
S-1 General Location Map S-2
S-2 Land Status Map S-3
S-3 Alternative B - Site Plan S-12
S-4 Alternative C - Site Plan S-13
S-5 Alternative D - Site Plan S-14
S-6 Alternative E - Site Plan S-19
S-7 Alternative F - Site Plan S-20
S-8 Alternative G - Site Plan S-24
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page SI
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
In January 1992, Battle Mountain Gold Company submitted a Plan of Operations outlining a proposal to
develop, construct and operate a surface mining and milling operation to recover gold values from
mining claims on and around Buckhorn Mountain, which is located approximately 3.5 miles east of
Chesaw, Washington (see Figure S-1, General Location Map). The Project is known as the Crown Jewel
Mine Project (Crown Jewel Project) and is being developed jointly by Battle Mountain Gold Company and
Crown Resources Corporation. These firms will be identified through this draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) summary document as the Proponent.
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Washington
Department of Ecology (WADOE), and Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR), have
determined that a decision on the Proponent's proposal would constitute a major federal and state
action requiring the preparation of an EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
1.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action would involve the development and operation of a surface (open pit) mine and
associated milling facility. As proposed by the Proponent, the Crown Jewel operation would process
about 3,000 tons of ore per day and handle an average of 34,000 tons of waste rock per day for an
estimated 8 years. Projected gold recovery, using conventional tank cyanidation, is estimated to be
approximately 180,000 ounces per year. The workforce would consist of about 1 50 people at full
production.
An estimated 766 acres would be disturbed under the Proponent's proposal during the life of the
operation. This acreage disturbance would be categorized as follows:
470 acres (61 %) - Forest Service administered lands;
184 acres (24%) - BLM administered lands;
20 acres (3%) - Washington State lands administered by the WADNR; and,
92 acres (12%) - Private lands.
Property ownership in the general area of the Crown Jewel Project is shown on Figure S-2, Land Status
Map.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose and need for the EIS is to respond to the Proponent's Plan of Operations to develop and
operate a mine within the claim boundaries of the Crown Jewel Project as controlled by the Proponent.
The Proponent's purpose and objectives for the Crown Jewel Project are to recover as much of the
Crown Jewel Project mineral deposit as is technically and economically possible, at a maximum rate of
return for its investors, consistent with applicable state, federal and local environmental, permitting, and
operational requirements.
1.3 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
The Forest Service and WADOE are the co-lead agencies responsible for completion of the Crown Jewel
Project EIS. The BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, and WADNR are cooperating agencies in the
preparation of the EIS. These agencies are following specific procedures that began with scoping and
data collection and continued with data analysis and evaluation of the alternatives. The results of this
EIS analysis will form the basis for eventual decisions on the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
BRITISH COLUMBIA
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
RITISH COLUMBIA
FERRY
COUNT
OREGON
FIGURE S-1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Filename CJS1D WG
<£>
in
-------
BPITISH COLUMBIA
' WASHINGTON"*' "^
LEGEND
\ \ U.SF.S. LANDS
STATE LANDS
8LM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
25-18 U.S.F.S MANAGEMENT AREA
MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
MINE PIT AREA
U.S.F.S. MANAGEMENT AREAS
- Provide a diversity of wildlife habitat,
including deer winter range, while
growing and producing merchantable
wood fiber
25 - Intensively manage trie timber and range
resources using both even-aged and
uneven-aged Silvicuitural practices
Manage to achieve a high present net
value and a high level of timber and
range outputs while protecting the basic
productivity of the land and providing
for the production of wildlife, recreation
opportunities, and other resources
Manage deer winter range and fawning
habitats to provide conditions which
can sustain optimal numbers of deer
indefinitely, without degrading habitat
characteristics such as forage, cover,
and soil
01
FIGURE S-2, LAND STATUS MAP
FILE NAME CJS20WG
GO
to
-------
Page S-4 SUMMARY June 1995
Upon issuance of the final EIS by the lead and cooperating agencies, the Forest Service and BLM, will
jointly select a preferred alternative and will individually issue a Record of Decision.
In the Record of Decision, the responsible officials may decide to:
Adopt the no action alternative;
Adopt one of the action alternatives;
Adopt an alternative that combines features of more than one alternative; or,
Adopt one of the action alternatives with additional mitigation measures.
If the proposal changes beyond that which is analyzed in the EIS, additional environmental analysis may
be required.
SEPA does not require that the WADOE or WADNR issue a Record of Decision. Washington State
regulatory agencies will issue (or deny) permits for the Crown Jewel Project following issuance of a final
EIS.
A listing of potential federal, state and local permits and approvals required for the Crown Jewel Project
are shown on Table S-1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals.
1.4 KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Scoping was conducted by the Forest Service and WADOE to focus the EIS on those issues and
concerns considered important to the public and the various governmental agencies.
Issues are the areas of discussion, debate or dispute about effects of proposed activities on specific
resources. The alternatives of the Crown Jewel Project EIS were designed to respond to the issues
brought forth in the scoping process. Key issues are those that surfaced most frequently in public and
agency comment and over which there were widely differing opinions. While other "non-key" issues
were also considered, they did not drive alternative development. Associated with all identified issues
are "Primary Comparison Criteria". These are quantitative and qualitative measures that indicate how
the individual alternatives respond to a particular issue, and can be used as a basis of comparison
amongst the alternatives.
The following addresses the key issues identified during the environmental analysis of the Crown Jewel
Project.
1.4.1 Geology and Geotechnical Considerations
Identify geologic hazards on the site and minimize the potential for failure of any Crown Jewel Project
facility. Areas of concern included potential influence of geologic hazards; potential for, and
consequences of, failures within waste rock disposal areas, tailings impoundment, pit walls or pond
liners; and the effects of blasting on the area geology.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Safety factors for waste rock slopes, tailings embankments, and pit walls;
Acres of potential ground subsidence through underground mining;
Potential for rock slides (loose rock areas) or exposure of unstable rock sections in
the pit wall; and,
Proximity of ground water to the bottom of the tailings liner.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page S-5
TABLE S-1, LIST OF TENTATIVE AND POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
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 (Dept. of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Plan of Operations
Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)
Plan of Operations
Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)
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 Activity
Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7
Consultation)
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Consultation
Radio Authorizations
Explosives User Permit
Mine Identification Number
Legal Identity Report
Miner Training Plan Approval
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Washington Department of Ecology
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
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Industrial Stormwater Permit
Burning Permit
Reservoir Permit
Dam Safety Permits
Water Right Permits (Surface & Ground Water)
Water Quality Standards Modification
Changes to Existing Water Rights
Water Rights Preliminary Permits
State Waste Discharge Permit
Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean Water
Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air Quality)
Dangerous Waste Permit
Act)
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
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works
Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
Shoreline Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Requirements
Building Permits
Maximum Environmental Noise Levels
Solid Waste Handling
Road Construction and/or Realignment
Power Service Contract
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S6 SUMMARY June 1995
1.4.2 Geochemistry
Identify the potential for acid-rock drainage and metais-transport from the mine pit and waste rock
disposal areas. Identify and minimize the potential impacts from the tailings material. Areas of concern
included down gradient water uses; potential short-term and long-term impacts to humans, wildlife, and
fish; the potential for acid-rock drainage; the ability to mitigate acid-rock drainage if it occurs; possible
releases of radioactive materials resulting from moving large quantities of earth; and the ability to isolate
potential pollutants in both the short-term and long-term.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock disposal areas;
Potential for release of radioactive materials (alpha and beta emissions);
Potential for metals transport; and,
Potential for release of tailings materials or interstitial liquids into ground and surface
waters.
1.4.3 Soils
Identify Project site soil resources and the adequacy of soil for reclamation. Areas of concern regarding
soil include the identification of soil resources in terms of quantity and quality; their use and adequacy
for final reclamation; and the potential for any soil erosion and loss of soil productivity.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Acres of topsoil removal;
Percent of soil available for reclamation at 12-inch and 18-inch depths; and,
Changes in soil productivity.
1.4.4 Surface Water and Ground Water
Identify and minimize impacts to water quality and hydrology to maintain the integrity of affected
watersheds. Maintain adequate flows to protect the underlying resources. Areas of concern include the
potential to alter the characteristics of existing hydrologic systems by direct disturbances of stream
courses; increased sediment loads; alteration of downstream flow rates; alteration of existing springs
and seeps; and changes in water chemistry as a result of mining and milling operations. Impacts to
water rights on Toroda Creek and Myers Creek, including Canadian water rights, are another area of
concern.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Changes in stream flow rates with the Project;
Lineal feet of existing stream channels impacted (Gold Bowl Creek, Marias Creek, and
Nicholson Creek);
Changes in numbers of springs and seeps in the Project area;
Predicted changes to ground water and surface water chemistry from pit water,
waste rock, and tailings;
Predicted increases in stream sediment loads; and,
Estimated life-of-mine water use (acre feet);
1.4.5 Reclamation
Minimize the size of the disturbed area and provide for reclamation of ali disturbed area's. Areas of
concern include successful short-term soil stability and long-term revegetation to a primarily forested
environment, and to prevent or control damage to the environment.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Acres/percentage of slopes steeper than 2H:1 V, at 21-1:1 V, at 2.5H:1 V, and at 3H:1 V
or flatter;
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CRO WN JEWEL MINE Page S 7
Acres/percentage of south-facing slopes needing reclamation;
Acres of disturbance needing reclamation;
Acres/percentages of disturbed slopes which can be successfully reclaimed with
timber (greater than 100, well scattered, live and healthy trees per acre); and,
Percentages of slopes which can be successfully reclaimed with grasses and shrubs.
1.4.6 Use of Hazardous Chemicals
Address impacts of chemicals, cyanide in particular, used in mining and milling. A number of chemicals
would be used that can have toxic effects on humans, wildlife, fisheries, and the general environment.
Areas of concern include the form these chemicals would be in if released to the environment; the
potential of these chemicals to affect humans and wildlife; the long-term health effects of the use of
these chemicals; the effectiveness and reliability of the detoxification process in removing hazardous
chemicals or depositing these chemicals in a stable form in the tailings pond; and the prevention of
contamination at the site.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Estimated annual/total tons used of: sodium cyanide, cement/lime, lead nitrate,
sodium nitrate, ammonium nitrate, hydrochloric acid, caustic, copper sulfate, and
diesel fuel.
1.4.7 Vegetation
Address the impacts to vegetation in the Project area. Areas of concern include the potential effects on
threatened, endangered, or sensitive plants; and the control of noxious weeds.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Number of threatened and endangered plant populations lost;
Number of sensitive plant populations affected;
Timber removed (board feet); and,
Annual/total Ambos (animal unit months) of grazing lost.
1.4.8 Wetlands
Identify and minimize impacts to wetlands of the Project. Areas of concern include the acres of
wetlands lost; the changes in functions and values of wetlands on-site and off-site (as a result of the
Project); and the potential effects from the creation and dewatering of the pit.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Acres of wetlands with changed functions (i.e. stormwater retention, filtering
capability) and values (potential habitat diversity, potential wildlife corridors) due to
the Project;
Acres and types of wetlands lost; and,
Acres and types of new wetlands created.
1.4.9 Wildlife Habitat and Populations
Minimize the disruption to wildlife habitats and populations. Areas of concern include impacts to
threatened, endangered, or candidate species; impacts to deer habitat, particularly snow intercept
thermal cover; impacts associated with increased human activity; loss of habitat and habitat
effectiveness; wildlife exposure to toxic substances; effects on migratory birds and auks; effects on
"Management Indicator Species" identified in the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resources
Management Plan; photoperiodic effects; and reduction of habitat diversity.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S8 SUMMARY June 1995
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Acres/percentage of deer winter range (snow intercept thermal cover and thermal
cover) lost;
Acres/percentage of old-growth harvested;
Fragmentation of mature and old-growth habitats;
Comparison of the balance of forage, hiding cover, thermal cover and snow intercept
thermal cover;
Comparison of the balance of grasslands; shrub; early successional; mixed conifer
pole; mixed conifer young and mature; old growth; deciduous; riparian/wetland;
agriculture; lakes/ponds; and disturbed;
Comparison of total and open road densities;
Acres/percentage of habitat of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species lost in
the Project analysis area;
Acres of deer summer thermal cover lost;
Loss of other habitats structures such as snags, down logs, cliffs, caves and talus
slopes;
Acres/percentage of "Management Indicator Species" habitat lost; and,
Impacts on migratory birds and auks.
1.4.10 Socioeconomics
Address the social, lifestyle, and economic impacts on local residents of Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
Areas of concerns include the impacts to the nearby communities such as housing, utilities, and
employment; the influx of workers and their families; the Project's effects on housing demand, public
and community services, and present lifestyles; and the effects of temporary and permanent Project
shutdown.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
Person-years of employment, annual/life of Project;
Payroll, annual/life of Project;
Anticipated population increase, Project related/cumulative;
Anticipated school enrollment effects, Project related/cumulative;
Anticipated permanent housing demand, Project related/cumulative; and,
Anticipated tax revenues, annual/life of Project.
1.5 ISSUES THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
The following issues were not used specifically in designing an alternative but were incorporated in
alternative designs, and are also evaluated and compared in the EIS.
1.5.1 Air Quality
Identify and minimize the air quality impacts caused by the Project. Areas of concern include effects on
air quality from fugitive dust and gaseous emissions; air quality impacts (visibility, depositional) on
nearby Class I airsheds including the Pasayten Wilderness; and cumulative air quality effects.
1.5.2 Heritage Resources and Native American Issues
Identify cultural resources and minimize disturbance impacts. Areas of concern include effects to
historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; and the
potential to affect cultural resources, treaty rights, trust issues and responsibilities to the Colville
Confederated Tribes.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S9
1.5.3 Energy
Identify the potential impact to energy supplies (i.e. electricity, diesel, propane and other petroleum
based products) and minimize the use of nonrenewable energy resources. Areas of concern include the
quantity of electricity needed and how it may impact the county; the quantity of diesel, other petroleum
based products and propane to be used during operations.
1.5.4 Noise
Identify and minimize noise impacts. Areas of concern include worker health and safety; and disruptions
to the normal activities of adjacent residents/communities and wildlife populations.
1.5.5 Fish Habitat and Populations
Minimize disruption to fish habitat and fish populations. The Crown Jewel Project has the potential to
alter fisheries habitat thus having a negative impact on fish populations. Of particular concern are
decreased flows in Nicholson, Marias and Myers Creeks; stream sedimentation; the impacts of changes
in stream chemistry and temperature on fish; and the potential for a toxic chemical release entering
Nicholson and/or Marias Creeks or other streams.
1.5.6 Recreation
Minimize disturbance to recreational opportunities. The facilities developed for the proposed Crown
Jewel Project should be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize disruption to recreational
opportunities in the area by minimizing impacts to scenery, noise, traffic and reductions in access.
1.5.7 Land Use
Minimize disturbance by maintaining a compact operation. The Forest Service and BLM management
plans for federal lands in the area emphasize protection of wildlife habitat and other resources while
managing for timber and range use and the inclusion of reasonable measures to accommodate the
claimant's rights under U.S. Mining laws. Patenting would represent a change in land use from public to
private land.
1.5.8 Scenic Resources
Minimize impacts to scenery of the Crown Jewel Project from both surrounding viewpoints and on-site.
The concerns include the impacts to scenery of the mine pit, waste rock disposal areas, tailings
impoundment, and other Project related facilities. Another concern is the impacts of lights from
operating at night.
1.5.9 Health/Safety
Protect worker health and safety. Concerns for worker health and safety include risks from the use of
chemicals, explosives, underground operations and heavy equipment. Identify the emergency response
measures that would be available in the event of chemical spills, fire or explosion.
1.5.10 Transportation
Address traffic impacts created by the Crown Jewel Project and the potential for accidents.
Transportation of employees and supplies to the site would need to be assessed, and the benefits and
disadvantages of using the different possible routes evaluated.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
PageS-10 SUMMARY June 1995
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
The discussion of alternatives is the foundation of the EIS process (40 CFR 1502.14 and Chapter 197-
11-400 WAC). This foundation consists of the development of a range of reasonable alternatives. The
agencies have explored and objectively evaluated numerous Project components during the selection and
development of the alternatives which include the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action. In
total, 7 alternatives (6 action and the no action) have been developed for evaluation in this EIS.
Alternatives have been developed and analyzed in this EIS document to address social and
environmental issues, to respond to public and agency concerns and input, and to satisfy regulations of
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA). Both federal and state regulations require that an EIS discuss alternatives, including the No-
Action Alternative. The objective of developing and reviewing the alternatives for the Crown Jewel
Project is to provide various agency decision makers and the public with a broad range of Project
alternatives for consideration.
2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS
The first step in developing alternatives involves identifying the Project components for the Crown Jewel
Project. Components (facilities and activities) are:
Mining Methods;
Operating Schedule;
Production Schedule;
Waste Rock Disposal;
Ore Processing;
Cyanide Destruction;
Tailings Disposal;
Tailings Embankment Construction;
Tailings Liner Design;
Employee Transportation;
Supply Transportation;
Water Supply;
Water Use;
Power Supply;
Sanitary Waste Disposal;
Solid Waste Disposal; and.
Reclamation.
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
A brief summary of the Crown Jewel Project alternatives assembled by the lead agencies (Forest Service
and WADOE) is included in this section.
Alternative A - No Action
This alternative, required by both NEPA and SEPA, would preclude Project development, but would not
change previous decisions regarding mineral exploration. Reclamation of the Project site from impacts
of previous exploration activities would begin as soon as feasible as described in previous NEPA
documents. This alternative provides the basis and existing condition against which the other action
alternatives are compared.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S 11
Alternative B - Proposed Action
This alternative proposes an open pit mine with 2 waste rock disposal areas located to the north and
south of the pit area. The facility would operate 24 hours per day, employ approximately 150 people
during operations, 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 of operation, and 1 year for completion of most
reclamation. Crushing would be conducted below ground level; grinding and milling would be above
ground in an enclosed building. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the tank
cyanidation process and carbon-in-leach (CIL) gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be
reduced using the cyanide destruction process consisting of S02 /Air/02 (INCO Process). The tailings
would be placed in a designed facility at the head of the Marias Creek drainage. Final reclamation would
leave the pit open to partially fill with water, and eventually discharge to the Nicholson Creek drainage
(Gold Bowl Creek). Employees would be bused to the site from locations in or near Oroville. The supply
route would access the Project from the south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek Road and Beaver
Canyon. Figure S-3, Alternative B - Site Plan, illustrates the site plan; Table S-2, Summary of
Alternative B, depicts the general components, employment projections, various land ownership acreage
to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the components.
Alternative C
This alternative proposes that ore be extracted by underground methods. The facility would operate 24
hours per day, employ 225 people during operations, and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per
day. The life of the operation would be 6 years: 1 year for construction, 4 years of operation, and 1
year for the completion of most reclamation. Crushing, grinding, and milling would be conducted above
ground. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the tank cyanidation process and CIL gold
recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using the cyanide destruct process
consisting of S02 /Air/02 (INCO Process). Waste rock from underground development would be placed
in a north disposal area. A surface quarry for rock material to construct tailings embankments and for
backfill in the mine would be located in the Marias Creek drainage. Employees would be bused to the
site from locations in or near Oroville. Supplies would be hauled from Oroville to Chesaw and then via a
south access route to the Project site. This alternative would produce about 60% of the gold that
would be available if surface (open pit) mining were used. Figure S-4, Alternative C - Site Plan,
illustrates the site plan; Table S-3, Summary of Alternative C, depicts the general components,
employment projections, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance
of the components.
Alternative D
This alternative would extract ore from the north portion of the ore body by surface mining and would
mine the southern portion of the ore zone by underground methods. The operation would run 24 hours
per day, employ about 225 people during operations, and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per
day. The life of the operation would be 8 years: 1 year for construction, 6 years for operation, and 1
year for the completion of most reclamation. Crushing would be conducted below ground level.
Grinding and milling would be above ground. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the
tank cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using
the cyanide destruction process consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed
in a designed facility in the Marias Creek drainage. Waste rock would be placed in a north disposal area
location. Some waste rock would be used for backfill in the underground mine. Final reclamation would
include leaving the north pit open to partially fill with water and eventually discharge to the Nicholson
Creek drainage (Gold Bowl Creek). Employees would be bused to the site from locations in or near
Oroville. The supply route would access the Crown Jewel Project from the south through Wauconda,
Toroda Creek, and Beaver Canyon. This alternative would recover about 80% of the gold reserve
available to strictly surface mining. Figure S-5, Alternative D - Site Plan, illustrates the site plan; Table
S-4, Summary of Alternative D, depicts the general components, employment projections, various land
ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the components.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
PageS-12
June 1995
R. 30 E. R. 31 E,
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE A
(Upper Nicholson)
AMMONIUM
NITRATE
STORAGE
DIVERSION
DITCH
DIVERSION
DITCH
SEDIMENT
POND
OFFICE.
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
ORE
STOCKPILE
ORE
PROCESSING
FACILITY
TAILINGS
PIPELINE
DIVERSION
DITCH
EMBANKMENT
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE B
(Upper Marias)
RECLAMATION
SOIL
BORROW
PITS
SEDIMENT
POND
1 POWERLINE
COLLECTION
MAIN
ACCESS
ROAD
LEGEND
FACILITY AREA
BOUNDARY
RECLAMATION LIMIT
CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
Fli EN A ME. CJS3 D WG
FIGURE S-3,
ALTERNATIVE B - SITE PLAN
-------
June 1995
Page S-13
(^~^~"XXr/
I EXPLORATION ADIT
MILL AND ORE
pRnr.FSQiMr:
rtILL AINU UKI
PROCESSING
SOIL
BORROW
PITS
I I / / / Frr I i I
PRODUCTION,,, ,,
ADITS Ydi
I TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
r J \S I \
ACCESS
ROAD
TAILINGS
EMBANKMENTS
" I 1
AND
SCREENING
PLANT
SULUIIUN
COLLECTION
LEGEND
FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
9) POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE
ZONE
FIGURE S-4,
ALTERNATIVE C - SITE PLAN
-------
Page S-14
June 1995
R. 30 E. R. 31 E.
SEDIMENT POND
DIVERSION DITCH
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE
(Upper Nicholson Area)
AMMONIUM
NITRATE
STORAGE
IWATER STORAGE
OFFICE, WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP COMPLEX
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
DIVERSION DITCH
IORE STOCKPILE
SEDIMENT
POND
MILL AND ORE
PROCESSING
COMPLEX
SOIL
BORROW
PITS
VENTILATION
RAISE
PRODUCTION
ADIT
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
EXPLORATION
ADIT
DIVERSION
DITCH
ACCESS
ROAD
TAILINGS
EMBANKMENTS
WILDLIFE
FENCE
LEGEND
FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
(6) POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE
ZONE
CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
FILENAME CJS-5DWG
FIGURE S-5,
ALTERNATIVE D - SITE PLAN
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S 15
TABLE S-2, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE B
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 tons of ore per day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/O2
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 1 250
Operations
Year 2-9 150
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 470 61
BLM 184 24
WADNR 20 3
Private 92 12
Total 766 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 260
Tailings Facility 87
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 18
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 43
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 7
Mam Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Misc. Site Access Roads 11
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities 40
Soil Borrow Pits 14
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 9
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 766
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental impact Statement
-------
PageS 16 SUMMARY Jus,e 1995
TABLE S-3, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE C
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 tons of ore per day
Mining Underground
Room & Pillar
Sublevel Sloping
Post & Pillar
Glory Hole
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of facilities)
Crushing Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Manas Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO?/Air/0,
Employee Transportation Busing and/or van pooling, (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Rock Quarry 2 Quarries
tailings area
backfill site
Reclamation Adits closed; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 250
Operations
Year 2-5 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 6 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 273 62
BLM 78 18
WADNR 20 5
Private 69 15
Total 440 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Temporary Waste Rock Disposal Areas 26
Tailings Facility 84
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 14
Subsidence Zones 27
Rock Quarries 25
Topsoil Stockpiles 29
Mine Adits 9
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 30
Misc. Site Access Roads 23
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 1
Soil Borrow Pits 14
Ancillary Facilities 50
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 9
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 440
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 7995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page S 17
TABLE S 4, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE D
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 tons of ore per day
Mining Open Pit and Underground
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of open pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO,/Air/0,
Employee Transportation Busing and/or van pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill, Adits Closed
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 250
Operations
Year 2-7 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 8 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 289 51
BLM 153 27
WADNR 20 4
Private 100 18
Total 562 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 98
Tailings Facility 87
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 18
Pit Area 73
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles . . 53
Mine Adits 8
Ore Stockpile 12
Mam Access Road 24
Haul Roads 35
Misc. Site Access Roads 23
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 1
Ancillary Facilities 41
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 9
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 562
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
PageS-18 SUMMARY June 1395
Alternative E
This alternative proposes 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. Although this may limit the Proponent's operational flexibility, the
Proponent would be required to schedule the operation to completely mine out the north pit before
finishing the south pit so that waste rock from the south pit could be used to partially refill the north pit
so that no permanent post-mining lake would be formed. Approximately 6 million cubic yards of waste
rock from the south pit would be used to partially refill the north pit. The operation would run 24 hours
per day, employ 1 50 people during operations 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 of operation, and 1 year to
complete most reclamation. Crushing would be conducted below ground level. Grinding and milling
would be above ground in an enclosed building. Gold extraction would use conventional milling with the
tank cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using
the cyanide destruction process consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed
in a designed facility in the Marias Creek drainage. Final reclamation would include partially backfilling
the final pit to achieve drainage and reestablish desirable topography. Employees would be bused to the
site from locations in or near Oroville. The supply route would access the Project from the south
through Wauconda, Toroda Creek and Beaver Canyon. Figure S-6, Alternative E - Site Plan, illustrates
the site plan; Table S-5, Summary of Alternative E, depicts the general components, employment
projections, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and surface area disturbance of the
components.
Alternative F
This alternative consists of an open pit mine with 1 temporary waste rock disposal area located north of
the pit area. The mine would operate 1 (12 hour) shift per day producing an average of 1,500 tons of
ore per day. The life of the operation would be 33 years: 1 year for construction, 16 years of operation,
and 16 years to complete reclamation, primarily consisting of backfilling of the mine pit. About 125
people would be employed during operations. Gold extraction would use conventional milling employing
tank cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using
the cyanide destruction process consisting of S02/Air/O2 (INCO Process). The tailings would be placed
in a designed facility in the Nicholson Creek drainage. Final reclamation would include returning about
54 million cubic yards of waste rock to the final pit. Employees would be bused to the site from a
location in or near Oroville. The supply route would access the Project from the south through
Wauconda, Toroda Creek Road, and Beaver Canyon.
This alternative would require a smaller mill than proposed in Alternatives B, C, D and E. Complete
backfilling upon the final extraction of gold values would require a considerable investment in equipment
and personnel during periods where there would be no monetary return from the sale of the gold values.
There would be substantially increased operating costs during gold production years to develop a sinking
fund to pay for the backfilling activities. Given economic feasibility considerations, totally different ore
reserves may result. This alternative is being considered to respond to public issues. Figure S~7,
Alternative F - Site Plan, illustrates the site plan; Table S-6, Summary of Alternative F, depicts the
general components, employment projections, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and
surface area disturbance of the components.
Alternative G
This alternative consists 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
operations, and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. The life of the operation would be 10
years: 1 year of construction, 8 years of operation, and 1 year to complete most reclamation. Crushing
would be conducted below ground level. Grinding and milling would be conducted above ground in an
enclosed building. The gold bearing material would be concentrated using a flotation process. The
concentrate would be transported off-site to undergo cyanidation processing to recover the gold values.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Page S 19
R. 30 E. R. 31 E.
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE I
(Upper Nicholson Expansion)
DIVERSION
DITCH
SEDIMENT
POND
-" TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
AMMONIUM
NITRATE
STORAGE
WATER
STORAGE
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
SEDIMENT
POND
WAREHOUSE
BOUNDAR
FENCE
ORE
STOCKPIL
PROCESSING
TAILINGS
PIPELINE
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
DIVERSION
DITCH
EMBANKMENT
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE C
(Upper Marias South)
GUARD
HOUSE
SEDIMEN
POND
LEGEND
FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
FIGURE S-6,
ALTERNATIVE E - SITE PLAN
-------
Page S 20
R 30 E R 31 E
WATER
SUPPLY
PIPELINE
DIVERSION
DITCH
SEDIMENT
POND
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
ACCESS
ROAD
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE I
(Upper Nicholson)
AMMONIUM
NITRATE
STORAGE
OFFICE,
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
COLLECTION
TOPSOIL
STOCKPIL
SOIL
BORROW
PIT
CATTLE
.GUARD
' / , "I in mi
)UNDARY / V
ORE
PROCESSING
FACILITY
BOUNDARY
FENCE
GUARD
HOUSE
NOTE PROJECTED RECLAIMED TOPOGRAPHY
SHOWN IN MINE PIT AREA
LEGEND
FACILITY AREA
BOUNDARY
900 1800
CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
FIGURE S-7,
ALTERNATIVE F - SITE PLAN
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
PageS-21
TABLE S-5, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE E
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 tons of ore per day
Mining Surface/Open Pit and Underground
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Manas Creek
Cyanide Destruction . ... INCO SO,/Air/0,
Employee Transportation Busing and/or van pooling, (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Partial Pit Backfill to Achieve Drainage from Pit
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 250
Operations
Year 2-9 150
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 574 62
BLM 195 21
WADNR 47 5
Private 111 12
Total 927 1 00
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 379
Tailings Facility ... 87
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 18
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 94
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Mam Access Road 24
Haul Roads .... 30
Misc. Site Access Roads 19
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 1
Ancillary Facilities . . 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station g
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 927
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S22 SUMMARY June 1995
TABLE S-6, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE F
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 1,500 tons of ore per day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/02
Employee Transportation Busing and/or van pooling; (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Complete Pit Backfill; no permanent waste rock disposal areas
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 250
Operations
Year 2-17 125
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 18-33 75
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 526 64
BLM 153 19
WADNR 38 5
Private 105 12
Total 822 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Temporary Waste Rock Disposal Area 215
Tailings Facility 157
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 18
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 63
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Misc. Site Access Roads 21
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 2
Ancillary Facilities 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 9
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 822
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-23
The non-concentrate from the flotation process would be placed in a designed tailings impoundment
located in the Nicholson Creek drainage. Final reclamation would include leaving the north pit open to
partially fill with water and eventually discharge into a tributary to Nicholson Creek (Gold Bowl
drainage). Employees would be bused to the site form locations in or near Oroville. Supplies would be
hauled from Oroville to Chesaw and then via the south access route to the Project site. Figure S-8,
Alternative G - Site Plan, illustrates the site plan; Table S-7, Summary of Alternative G, depicts the
general components, employment projections, various land ownership acreage to be disturbed, and
surface area disturbance of the components.
This alternative will require a different mill than proposed in the other action alternatives. Preliminary
analytical work completed for a flotation process on the Crown Jewel Project mineralized zones
indicated that 45% of the gold values can be recovered versus 87% recoverable utilizing conventional
cyanidization processing. This reduction would affect the economic feasibility of this alternative. In
response to public input, it was decided to consider an alternative involving non-cyanide processing.
Table S-8, Alternative Comparison Summary, presents a comparison of the alternative descriptions,
while Table S-9, Acreage Summary, presents a breakdown of acres disturbed by various Project facilities
and components.
2.3 RECLAMATION
Reclamation would be required for all action alternatives. The purpose of reclamation would be to return
disturbed areas to a stable and productive condition after mine and mill closure, as well as to protect
long-term land and water resources in the area. The Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR have
reclamation responsibilities to ensure the return of disturbed lands to productive uses consistent with
their individual land management policies and regulations.
The following are the fundamental reclamation goals and objectives for the Crown Jewel Project:
Establishment of stable surface, topographic, and drainage conditions that are
compatible with the surrounding landscape, and that control erosion and water
quality impacts from the Project;
Establishment of surface soil conditions that are conducive to regeneration of a stable
plant community through removal, storage, and reapplication of suitable soil material;
Revegetation of disturbed areas using agency-approved, site-adapted species in order
to establish a long-term productive, stable plant community compatible with future
land uses; and,
Consideration of public safety through the stabilization, removal, or isolation of
structures and landforms created as a result of the Project activities that could
constitute a public hazard.
Vegetation clearing (logging) and topsoil salvage (and stockpiling) would be conducted by the Proponent
prior to operation in order to promote successful reclamation at the end of mining. Clearing would be
done up to one year ahead of the need for the area for Project facilities and activities.
The Proponent would undertake appropriate interim and segmental reclamation measures on certain
components (i.e. waste rock disposal areas) to reduce erosion and to promote revegetation of disturbed
areas. These reclamation practices would be completed during the ongoing mining activities.
Final reclamation activities would be scheduled to occur as soon as practical after the mining activities
are completed. In general, reclamation activities would be timed to take advantage of optimal climatic
conditions. Final grading, drainage and sediment control would be completed over the late spring and
summer months. Seedbeds would be prepared in late summer through early fall. Seeding would be
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S 24
R. 30 E. R. 31 E.
.\\VCU/;//.K
WASTE ROCK
STOCKPILE J
(North Nicholson)
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
OFFICE,
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
TOPSOIL
STOCKPILE
[CRUSHER] 1 j'
\\iiu \ //f/'
RECLAIM
SOLUTION
COLLECTION
POND
PROCESSING
TAILINGS
EMBANKMENT
FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
FILENAME CJSS DWG
FIGURE S-8,
ALTERNATIVE G - SITE PLAN
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-25
TABLE S-7, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE G
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 tons of ore per day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing .... Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Flotation, Off-Site Cyanidation
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction Not Applicable
Employee Transportation Busing and/or van pooling; (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 250
Operations
Year 2-9 210
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 546 61
BLM 198 22
WADNR 44 5
Private 108 12
Total 896 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 294
Tailings Facility 137
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 18
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 72
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Mam Access Road 24
Haul Roads 63
Misc Site Access Roads 15
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 1
Soil Borrow Pits 11
Ancillary Facilities 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 9
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 896
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
GO
TABLE S-8, ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY
Mining Method
Operating Schedule
Production
Schedule
Project Life
Employment
Local Hire (%)
Area of
Disturbance
Mill Process
Ore Reserve"
Base (oz)
Minable Ounces
Grade (oz/ton)
Mill Recovery (%)
Recovered (oz)
Tailings Location
Waste Rock
Disposal
Supply Route
Site Reclamation
Alternative A
Reclamation Only
Daylight hours,
Summer months
Not Applicable
1 year
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec- 1
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: = 4 people
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: 100
= 55 acres
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Exploration roads
and drill sites
Alternative B
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 50 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper. 80
Rec 95
766 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Manas Creek
54 mm yd3
2 disposal areas:
North (A) and South
(B) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 94SO - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit left open; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
Alternative C
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
6 years
Const: 1
Oper: 4
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 25
Oper 40
Rec- 95
440 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,355,569
934,300
0.25
89
= 831,530 oz
Manas Creek
= 500,000 yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Adits
within Area A
From Oroville CR
9480 CR 4835 -
FS 120 - Site
Possible
subsidence;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Alternative D
Surface (open pit) /
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
8 years
Const: 1
Oper: 6
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const. 30
Oper: 50
Rec- 95
562 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,520,149
1,261,600
0.20
88
= 1,1 10,200 oz
Marias Creek
27 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Pit within
Area A
From Wauconda - CR
3435 - CR 3480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit left open; possible
subsidence; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
Alternative E
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
10 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 50 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
927 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Manas Creek
48 mm yd3
2 disposal areas:
North (I) and South
(C) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit partially backfilled;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Alternative F
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
Mill 24 hours/day
Mine 1 2 hours/day
1,500 tons/day
33 years
Const: 1
Oper: 16
Rec: 16
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 25 people
Rec: 75 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
822 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 (temp) stockpile:
North (I) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CH 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit backfilled;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Alternative G
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
10 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 210 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
896 acres
Flotation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
52(flot) + 87ICN)
~ 709,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 disposal area.
North (J) of Pit
From Oroville CR
9480 - CP 4895 -
FS 120 - Site
Pit left open;
Facilities removed,
Site revegetated
Note: 1 . Based on data requested from the Proponent; Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Draft Alternative: Request For Additional Information,
July 7, 1993.
I
30
a
51
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page S-27
TABLE S-9, ACREAGE SUMMARY
Surface Facility
Waste Rock Stockpile(s)
Tailings Facility (includes everything within wildlife fence)
Mill and Ore Processing Facility
Pit Area (includes 100 foot buffer zone)
Exploration and Production Adits
Subsidence Area
Topsoil Stockpiles
Ore Stockpile Area (includes water storage tanks and crusher
access)
Mam Access Road (2.0 miles in length by 100' wide)
Haul Roads
Access Roads (vary in length by 50' wide)
Tailings Slurry Pipeline (vary in length by 24' wide)
Soil Borrow Pits and Rock Quarries
Ancillary Facilities
Ammonium Nitrate Storage
Ventilation Raises
Backfill Raises
Crusher and Screening Plant
Administration/Security Building
Sediment Control Structures
(estimated 2 acres per pond + ditches 24' wide)
Water Supply Pipeline
Water Storage Reservoir
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir Area)
Power line Right-of-Way
TOTAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE (acres)
Alternative
A _,
55'
55
B
260
87
18
1382
43
7
<24)3
48
1 1
4
14?
(2)1
34
35
9
35?
4
24
766"
C
26
84
14
9
27
29
12
24
30
23
1
39
1
3
3
5
3
35
9
35
4
24
440
D
98
87
18
73
8
3
53
12
24
35
23
1
14
1
2
3
35
9
35
4
24
562
E
379
87
18
138
94
12
24
30
19
1
14
1
3
35
9
35
4
24
927
F
215
157
18
138
63
12
24
48
21
2
13
1
3
35
9
35
4
24
822
G
294
137
18
138
72
12
24
63
15
1
11
1
3
35
9
35
4
24
896
Notes: 1. Unreclaimed acreage associated with exploration activities.
2. Integrated Plan of Operations updated with letter dated 9/28/94.
3. Acreage not included in Integrated Plan of Operations.
4. Compares acreage on equal basis with other alternatives.
completed in mid to late fall in order for the seeds to take advantage of winter and spring moisture. Tree
and shrub planting would take place in the spring.
2.4
MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION
A number of management and mitigation measures would be conducted at the Crown Jewel Project.
These measures would be based on federal, state, and local laws and regulations, best management
practices, and the Proponent's company policies.
Management and mitigation measures are designed to eliminate, minimize or compensate for
environmental impacts during the construction and operation of the Project. A brief description of the
management and mitigation measures to be applied to the Crown Jewel Project include the following:
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
PageS28 SUMMARY June 1995
Air Quality
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) would be used to control emissions as part of the WADOE air
quality permit. Dust suppression programs would be required for truck haulage and mine pit activities.
Employee busing or van-pooling would be provided to reduce traffic.
Geology and Geotechnical
Appropriate factors of safety would be required for the tailings embankments, waste rock slopes, and
mine pit walls.
Human
The Proponent would maintain plans for spill prevention and control of hazardous materials. These plans
would describe the toxic or hazardous materials to be used at the site, transportation safeguards,
storage and use procedures, methods of disposal, and the emergency procedures, equipment and
personnel to be used to respond in the event of a spill.
Land Use
Actual disturbance would be minimized by maintaining a compact operation. Project perimeter fences
would be maintained to control general public and livestock access.
Noise
Operational noise levels from the operation would comply with applicable state and local regulations. As
possible, trees and other vegetation would be retained on the Project site to dampen sound
transmission.
Scenic Resources
Crown Jewel Project buildings would use non-reflective earthtone paints. As possible, trees and other
vegetation would be retained to screen facilities.
Socioeconomics
Local hiring would be maximized, as practicable, by employing local contractors and workers, using the
local job service center, and going outside the local area only if qualified local candidates are not
available.
Soils
Soil would be removed ahead of mining operations, stockpiled, and reapplied as part of final reclamation.
Surface and Ground Water
Best management practices (BMPs) would be required for erosion and sediment control. The tailings
disposal facility would be designed and operated as a closed circuit, zero-discharge system. Water use
would be controlled through water-right permits. Specific handling procedures would be employed for
the transportation, storage and use of hazardous materials to be used at the Project. Water discharged
off, from the Project facilities would be routed to detention ponds, the tailings pond or the mill.
Discharge water would not be released to the environment until the water meets federal and state water
quality standards.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S 29
Transportation
The access road to the site would be upgraded or maintained according to Okanogan County and Forest
Service requirements. Employee busing and /or van pooling would be provided to reduce traffic. Pilot
cars would be used during haulage of hazardous materials to the site from the junction of County Roads
9480 and 9495 at the mouth of Beaver Canyon to the Project site or through the town of Chesaw to
the Project site.
Vegetation
The Proponent would maintain a compact operation and would avoid, when possible, sensitive habitats.
Timer harvest would be conducted in accordance with appropriate Forest Service, BLM or WADNR
contracts. Noxious weeds would be controlled within the Project area. All vegetation would be retained
within the Project footprint that does not need to be removed for a Project facility or activity.
Wetlands
Wetlands lost through operational activities would be compensated for through mitigation, including
replacement, enhancement, or restoration.
Wildlife and Fish
The Proponent would avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and sensitive habitats through a number of
measures including maintenance of a compact operation, proper handling of chemicals, cyanide
detoxification in the tailings pond, proper drainage and sediment control, employee busing,
compensation for some of the lost habitat and implementation of reclamation practices.
2.5 MONITORING
Monitoring plans would be implemented as part of any action alternative. Monitoring would be
conducted for surface and ground water, air, geochemistry, wildlife, vegetation, and reclamation.
The basic goals and objectives for operational monitoring programs at the Crown Jewel Project would be
as follows:
Quantify any measurable environmental impacts associated with construction,
operation, reclamation and post-closure condition of the Project.
Evaluate the extent of impacts;
Determine whether alterations of Project operations or additional mitigation actions
would be required to correct unanticipated impacts encountered; and,
Prevent or identify violations of regulatory requirements.
Routine review of monitoring data would be conducted throughout the life of the Crown Jewel
Project by officials from the Proponent and appropriate regulatory agencies.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-30 SUMMARY June 1995
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A considerable effort was undertaken by numerous resource specialists to characterize the physical,
biological, and social condition of the area within and surrounding the Crown Jewel Project. Background
and baseline studies have been conducted on the site since 1990.
A brief summary of the resource areas discussed in the Crown Jewel Project draft EIS follows:
3.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE
The air quality and climate at the proposed Crown Jewel Project site are influenced by topography, the
prevailing westerly winds, and weather fronts from the Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. Air quality in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project is expected to be generally good. EPA has not designated any non-
attainment areas in Okanogan County. The indication that air quality is good must be tempered with the
knowledge that the amount of air quality monitoring conducted in Okanogan County is limited. The
Proponent has maintained an on-site weather station since 1991.
The monthly average temperature measured at the Project site ranged from a monthly average low of
24.6°F (-4.10C) in January to a monthly average of 60.1 °F (15.6°C) in August. The estimated annual
precipitation at the Project site is 21.3 inches, and the estimated pan evaporation is 38.7 inches.
During the winter, the wind direction was generally from the east. During the spring, summer and
autumn, the prevailing wind direction was generally from the west.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
The topography of the general area varies from steep to relatively flat, with elevations ranging from 900
feet in the Okanogan River Valley near the town of Oroville to 5,602 feet at the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain. The elevation of the community of Chesaw and the Myers Creek drainage is slightly less
than 3,000 feet.
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY
The geology of north-central Okanogan County is a complex association of igneous, metamorphic, and
sedimentary rocks. The larger valleys of the region contain surface materials of alluvium and glacial
deposits. The Crown Jewel Project orebody is hosted by a skarn deposit found in a sequence of folded
and faulted volcanic, sedimentary, and carbonate rocks. The geology of the deposit is based on the
detailed analysis and interpretation of approximately 280,000 feet of reverse circulation drilling and
80,000 feet of core drilling conducted by the Proponent.
A geochemical testing program was performed for the proposed Crown Jewel Project to assess the
potential for waste rock, ore, and tailings materials to generate acid rock drainage (ARD) and leachates
containing metals and radionuclides. A total of 89 waste rock samples and 10 ore and low grade ore
samples were tested for the Proponent by Core Laboratories, Inc. These samples were selected by the
Proponent's geologists and geochemist to represent the range of lithologic and mineralogical differences
observed at the site. To confirm that the samples were representative, the EIS Project team selected an
additional 278 waste rock samples for acid-base-accounting (ABA) analysis as well as duplicates of 8
samples previously tested by the Proponent. To assess geochemical conditions in the tailings area, the
Proponent also had prepared and tested 7 representative tailings samples.
Analyses of test samples (waste rock, ore, and tailings) showed the occurrence of several common
trace metals that potentially could occur in mine leachates. These metals include arsenic, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, thorium, tin, vanadium, and zinc. Radionuclides
occur in these materials at levels at or below average concentrations for the rock types tested.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-31
Leachability tests indicated that precipitation would typically not leach substantial concentrations of
metals and radionuclides from the mine materials. Arsenic was, however, detected at moderate
concentrations (0.09 to 0.24 mg/l) in leachates from 5 of the 7 tailings samples analyzed. Iron was
detected at low concentrations (0.04 to 0.05 mg/l) in leachates from 13 of 81 waste rock samples
analyzed. Aluminum was detected in 7 of the 10 ore leachates tested at concentrations of 0.06 to 0.60
mg/l.
Analysis of the liquid portion of the tailings samples demonstrated that when detoxified to weak acid
dissociable (WAD) cyanide levels of less than 10 ppm, the tailings pond water would be slightly alkaline
and contain elevated levels of total dissolved solids and nutrients, and low to moderate trace metal
concentrations.
ABA tests suggest that the overall volumes of waste rock, ore, and tailings generated at the site would
not be acid generating under the different Project alternatives. Individually, 2 of the waste rock groups
(magnetite skarns and altered elastics) were found to be potentially acid generating based on ABA
results. Of the ore samples tested, 2 low-grade magnetite skarn samples and 1 undifferentiated skarn
sample were also found to have a low to marginal potential to generate acid, although, in light of the
time ore would be stockpiled before processing, it is unlikely this would occur. Tailings samples
prepared from 2 of the 3 ore types were also found to have a marginal acid generation potential based
on ABA testing.
ABA results from the EIS confirmation program confirmed the Proponent's findings regarding the waste
rock characteristics. Also, comparison of duplicate results from the 2 testing programs indicated similar
conclusions would be drawn regarding ability to predict acid-producing potential in approximately 75%
of the 8 samples tested.
Waste rock samples collected from the proposed walls of the final mine pit were predicted not to be
acid generating based on average ABA results. Pit water quality modeling determined that water
collected in the proposed mine pit would not be acidic during or after mining, but may not meet federal
or state water quality standards due to trace minerals in the water.
Twenty-week humidity cell tests (HCTs) were performed to further evaluate samples determined to be
potentially acid generating from the ABA tests. Results of these tests indicated 2 unaltered andesite
samples, 1 magnetite skarn sample, and 4 altered elastics samples exhibited a marginal to strong
tendency to generate acid. Accounting for their occurrence at the site, these materials would make up
less than 5% of the total waste rock volume generated under the action alternatives. Humidity cell
testing of ore and tailings samples indicated that these materials were not acid generating.
Further analysis of the HCT leachates indicated that those samples that were found to generate acid
contained detectable levels of several trace metals including antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, manganese, nickel, thallium and zinc. As indicated above, these samples are estimated to
represent less than 5% of the total waste rock volume.
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Seismic (or earthquake) activity in Central Washington is low. According to the Uniform Building Code,
the Crown Jewel Project area lies in Zone 2B of the Seismic Risk Map of the United States. This zone
can be expected to receive moderate damage corresponding to Intensity VII of the Modified Mercalli
Intensity Scale of 1931.
3.5 SOILS
A variety of soils occur within the Crown Jewel Project area. On-site soil surveys were completed in
1992 and 1993 to augment previous soil surveys completed by the USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service for Okanogan County and for the Okanogan National Forest. Salvage depths of
soils suitable for reclamation ranged from 0 to 28 inches over the Crown Jewel Project area depending
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-32 SUMMARY June 1995
upon individual map unit characteristics. The percent of each unit determined to be salvageable ranged
from 0% to 100% with percentages between 85% and 95% being most common. Coarse fragment
content of the soil typically ranged from 5% to over 60%.
3.6 SURFACE WATER
Five drainages that originate near the top of Buckhorn Mountain would be potentially affected by the
proposed Crown Jewel Project area. Marias and Nicholson Creeks drain the eastern flank of Buckhorn
Mountain and join with Toroda Creek. Gold, Bolster and Ethel Creeks drain the western flank of
Buckhorn Mountain and join with Myers Creek. Toroda and Myers Creeks eventually join with the Kettle
River which is a tributary to the Columbia River.
A surface water-monitoring program is maintained on these 5 drainages. Baseline data collection was
initiated at 3 locations in October 1 990. There are 14 surface water monitoring stations that are used
for both flow measurements and water quality analyses. Measurements and samples are taken on a
monthly basis.
Field analyses indicate that surface waters at the Project site are alkaline and contain measurable
oxygen, with field pH values ranging from 6.9 to 9.3 and dissolved oxygen (DO) ranging from 1.5 to
13.8 mg/l. Surface water temperatures vary seasonally, with measurements ranging from 30.7°F
(-0.7°C) in Gold Creek during the winter to 62.6°F (17°C) in Nicholson Creek during the summer.
Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and bicarbonate are the dominant cation and anion measured,
respectively, in site surface waters. This would suggest that the site surface waters are buffered by the
carbonate system. One exception is surface water station SW-10 , located at the headwaters to Gold
Creek. In samples from this station, sulfate, rather than bicarbonate, was the dominant anion measured.
The highest total dissolved solids (TDS) measured in site surface waters also occurs al surface water
station SW-10, ranging from 368 to 482 mg/l. By comparison, TDS levels were lower at the other
surface stations (62 to 324 mg/l), including surface water station SW-4, located about 1 mile down
gradient of surface water station SW-10 on Gold Creek.
Dissolved traced metal concentrations in site surface waters were generally at or below analytical
detection limits. Both arsenic and strontium were, however, consistently detected in all drainages at
levels above detection limits. Arsenic concentrations ranged from below detection (less than 0.001
mg/l) to 0.014 mg/l, and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Strontium concentrations ranged from below detection
(less than 0.01 mg/l) to 0.76 mg/l and averaged 0.3 mg/l. These metals are commonly detected at
trace levels in natural waters as a result of the interaction with sediments and bedrock.
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS
Since June 1 992, spring and seep surveys have been performed every spring and autumn in the
headwaters of Nicholson, Marias, Gold, Bolster and Ethel Creeks. A total of 30 springs and 18 seeps
have been identified. Flow measurements and water quality samples have been collected at the sites to
characterize the "wet" and "dry" seasons.
Field analyses indicated that the springs are slightly acidic to alkaline, with pH values ranging from 5.9
to 9.4. Water temperatures exhibited seasonal variability, with values ranging from 34.9°F (1.6°C) to
73.8°F(23.2°C).
Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and bicarbonate are the dominant cation and anion,
respectively, measured in all site springs. Total dissolved solids (TDS) values averaged 176 mg/l and
ranged from 56 mg/l at spring SN-3 (Nicholson Creek drainage) to 350 mg/l at spring SN-17 (Bolster
Creek drainage).
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-33
Dissolved trace metal concentrations were generally at or below analytical detection limits. Arsenic,
barium and strontium were, however, frequently measured at levels above detection limits in the
springs. Arsenic concentrations ranged from below the detection limit (0.001 mg/l) to 0.009 mg/l and
averaged 0.001 mg/l. Barium concentrations ranged from below the detection limit (0.01 mg/l) to 0.03
mg/l, but averaged less than 0.01 mg/l. Strontium concentrations ranged from .08 to 1.71 mg/l and
averaged 0.18 mg/l. Seasonal trends were not observed in the metal analyses.
Field analyses of seeps indicated that pH and DO levels were generally within the range measured in site
springs. Seep temperatures, however, were typically higher than the springs with values ranging from
43.0°F (6.1°C) to 63.0°F (17.2°C). The higher seep temperatures measured may be the result of the
stagnant nature of waters sampled at these sites.
3.8 GROUND WATER
Regional ground water in and around the Crown Jewel Project area occurs in bedrock, glacial deposits,
and alluvial sediments. A total of 9 monitoring wells have been installed at the Crown Jewel Project site
to monitor ground water quantity and quality. These wells have been monitored monthly for water level
and water quality since May and June of 1992.
The Crown Jewel Project area bedrock has low primary (intergranular) permeability and porosity, and the
ground water flow is governed by fracture and joint systems (secondary permeability and porosity). The
ground water flow within the proposed mine area is impacted by the presence of the North Lookout
Fault (dipping 60 to 70 degrees to the southeast and striking northeast).
Fractured bedrock in the proposed mine area have hydraulic conductivities ranging from 0.031 to 0.8
ft/day (1.1 x 106 to 2.8 x 10~4 cm/sec). The pumping test results indicate a range of average hydraulic
conductivity from 0.1 to 0.75 ft/day (3.5 x 106 to 2.6 x 10" cm/sec).
Testing for permeability of the bedrock in the Marias Creek tailings facility area indicated a range of
hydraulic conductivities from less than 0.00028 to 1.4 ft/day (1 x 107 to 5.0x104 cm/sec).
The ground water depth from the surface ranges from an active artisan discharge from boreholes 90-
303 and GB-220, to a depth of 380.7 feet from the ground surface in borehole 90-218.
Ground water level monitoring in the Project area bedrock was initiated in May 1991. Monitoring of
water levels in the proposed mine area indicated that seasonal fluctuation of the depth to ground water
level is highly variable. Fluctuation of water levels over a period of 20 months ranged from several feet
to 228 feet. The highest water levels were observed during spring (April through June), and the lowest
levels were measured through winter (December through March). The water level fluctuation is much
higher east of the North Lookout Fault than within the fault zone and west of the North Lookout Fault.
The Crown Jewel Project area bedrock is recharged by infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. The
infiltration from the local streams is minor at the proposed mine site due to its location on the top of the
watershed. The contributions to infiltration from the streams is more pronounced on the lower reaches
of the local streams.
3.8.1 Bedrock Water Quality
Field analyses from the bedrock wells indicate that ground waters sampled are near neutral to
moderately alkaline, with pH values ranging from 6.7 to 9.2. Ground water temperatures in these wells
ranged from 4.1 °C (39.4°F) to 7.9°C (46.2°F) and averaged 5.8°C (42.4°F). DO levels ranged from
3.1 to 12.3 mg/l, although these measurements may have been affected by entrainment of air in the
samples during collection.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-34 SUMMARY June 1995
Laboratory analyses indicated that with the exception of bedrock well MW-1, calcium and bicarbonate
were the dominant cation and anion, respectively, measured in all site wells, including the glacial wells.
Sodium (rather than calcium) was the dominant cation measured in bedrock well MW-1.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in the bedrock wells ranged from 90 to 250 mg/l and averaged 149
mg/l. By comparison, the average TDS concentration measured in the glacial wells was 187 mg/l; TDS
concentrations in site surface waters averaged 233 mg/l. The similar TDS levels measured in ground
waters and surface waters at the Crown Jewel Project site suggest a close interrelationship exists
between these 2 hydrologic systems as well as between the bedrock and glacial aquifers.
In general, dissolved trace metal concentrations in the bedrock wells were at or below analytical
detection limits. Three trace metals (arsenic, barium, and strontium) were, however, commonly
detected at levels above detection levels. Dissolved arsenic concentrations ranged from less than 0.001
to 0.008 mg/l and averaged 0.004 mg/l. Dissolved barium concentrations ranged from less than 0.01
to 0.03 mg/l and averaged 0.01 mg/l. Dissolved strontium concentrations ranged from 0.09 to 0.80
mg/l and averaged 0.26 mg/l.
3.8.2 Glacial Sediment Water Quality
In general, water quality data from the bedrock wells and glacial deposit wells were similar. Field
analyses indicated that ground water in the glacial deposits was also near neutral to slightly alkaline
with pH values ranging from 6.0 to 8.3. Ground water temperatures in the glacial deposit wells were
slightly higher than the bedrock wells, ranging from 37.6°F (3.1 °C) to 47.3°F (8.5°C) and averaging
43.2°F (6.2°C). DO concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 13.3 mg/l and probably were affected, as
indicated above, by entrainment of air in the samples during collection.
Laboratory analyses indicated that calcium and bicarbonate were the dominant cation and anion,
respectively, measured in all ground water samples from the glacial deposit wells. TDS levels ranged
from 76 to 344 mg/l and averaged 187 mg/l.
Similar to the bedrock wells, dissolved trace metal concentrations in the glacial deposit wells were
generally at or below analytical detection limits. Exceptions include arsenic, barium, iron, manganese,
and strontium. With the addition of iron and manganese, the same trace metals were typically present
at levels above detection limits in the bedrock wells. The occurrence of iron and manganese in the
glacial deposit wells may be unique to this glacial material. Arsenic concentrations in the glacial deposit
wells ranged from less than 0.001 up to 0.43 mg/l and averaged 0.006 mg/l. Barium concentrations
ranged from less than 0.01 up to 0.17 mg/l and averaged 0.01 mg/l. Iron concentrations ranged from
less than 0.02 up to 0.23 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l. Manganese concentrations ranged from less
than 0.01 to .70 mg/l and averaged 0.07 mg/l. Strontium concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 0.54
mg/l and averaged approximately 0.27 mg/l.
3.8.3 Historic Mining Influence on Ground Water and Surface Water
The Buckhorn Mountain area of the Myers Creek mining district has been historically prospected and
most of the abandoned mine adits present in the vicinity of the Buckhorn Mountain penetrated into the
zone of ground water saturation, and water discharges from the workings.
The water discharge from historic mine workings in the vicinity of the Project has been monitored since
June 1992. The most substantial discharge, ranging from 23 to 121 gpm, has been measured from the
lower Roosevelt adit. The discharge from the Buckhorn adit ranged from 1.9 to 6 gpm. The other
abandoned mine adits, Gold Axe and Magnetic in particular, have small seasonally variable discharge
and standing water at the entrances to the adits.
Water quality data from the Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and Roosevelt adits were found to have a
similar quality as samples taken from site monitoring wells. The waters were slightly alkaline with an
average pH of 7.8 and a pH range of 5.8 to 8.6. Calcium and bicarbonate were the dominant anion and
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 7995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-35
cation, respectively. The total dissolved solids content averaged 224 mg/l and ranged from 1 56 mg/l to
384 mg/l. Dissolved trace metal concentrations were generally below detection level with the exception
of arsenic and strontium.
Water ponded in the Upper Magnetic and Gold Axe adits were found to be chemically distinct from the
wells and other adits sampled and characterize generally lower pH values, averaging 6.5 in the Gold Axe
adit and 7.5 in the Upper Magnetic adit, relatively high TDS levels averaging 494 mg/l, and high sulfate
concentrations relative to alkalinity.
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
Individuals living near the Crown Jewel Project site obtain their water through private ground or surface
water rights. Water in the area has historically been used for domestic, irrigation, and stock water
purposes. Water rights in Washington are obtained through and managed by WADOE. Some
Washington State adjudicated water rights in the Myers Creek drainage basin have been granted for
water use in Canada by Canadians. U.S. water right holders with junior priority dates on Myers Creek
have historically been regulated during average flow years; however, Myers Creek is not administratively
closed to further water appropriations. Toroda Creek has been administratively closed to further water
appropriations during the irrigation season.
3.10 VEGETATION
The Crown Jewel Project is primarily located in the forested area of the Okanogan Highlands
physiographic province. Information has been gathered on upland plant communities, forest resources,
noxious weeds, and threatened, endangered, and sensitive vegetation species. The region's vegetation
has been altered to some degree from past logging, grazing, and historic mining and exploration
activities.
On the forested sites, within and surrounding the Crown Jewel Project area, Douglas-fir and subalpine fir
form the major upland forest zones. These species are particularly common in the forest areas east of
the Okanogan River. Western larch is also common in the area and is found in a variety of sites.
Bull thistle was the most commonly observed noxious weed. Canada thistle was not as common as bull
thistle, but it occurred on most sites suitable for bull thistle. Musk thistle was found at one site in upper
Marias Creek and at 2 sites southwest of Buckhorn Mountain in 1992. Hound's tongue was found on
the lower east side of the Crown Jewel Project site. No knapweed was found in the vegetation study
area.
No federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant species are known to occur in the vicinity
of the Project, however, 2 species listed on the Region 6, Regional Forester's sensitive species list
(Listera borealis, Plantanthera obtusata) do exist in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project. Another
species, Botrychium crenulatum, is currently in the Federal Register as a Category 2 Federal Candidate
for Federal Listing.
Three Forest Service grazing allotments are found within and surrounding the Crown Jewel Project site.
These are the Cedar, Ethel and Gold grazing allotments. In addition, there are several private allotments
(including BLM allotments) which are administered as part of the Forest Service allotments.
3.11 WETLANDS
Wetlands totaling 46.85 acres were identified at 32 locations within and surrounding the proposed
Crown Jewel Project area. These include approximately 26.1 acres of forested broad-leafed deciduous
(quaking aspen, sitka and red alder) and forested needle-leafed evergreen wetlands (Engleman spruce);
14 acres of deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands, (redosier dogwood, peach-leaf willow, prickly currant); and
6.8 acres of persistent emergent wetlands (reed canarygrass, creeping bentgrass, spike rush, small
winged sedge, cattail, burreed, bulrush).
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-36 SUMMARY
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES
Stream channel and aquatic habitats were assessed, and fisheries studies were conducted in Myers,
Gold, Marias, and Nicholson Creeks. This work included electrofishing surveys, threatened, endangered
and sensitive fisheries species investigations, benthic macro-invertebrate surveys, and completion of an
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) study on Myers Creek.
Most of the areas that would be affected by direct disturbance from the action alternatives are situated
in either the Marias or Nicholson Creek drainages; however, the Proponent has proposed to divert a
certain amount of water from Myers Creek which would be stored in a water supply reservoir and
pumped to the mine site via a water supply pipeline.
Both rainbow trout and brook trout were visually observed in the surveyed segments of Myers Creek.
Of the total fish surveyed by electrofishing in Myers Creek, approximately 75% were brook trout and
25% were rainbow trout. The mean lengths of the fish examined by electrofishing on Myers Creek
were 111 mm (4.4 inches) for brook trout and 106 mm (4.2 inches) for rainbow trout.
Marias Creek is a small stream, with intermittent flow in the upper reaches and perennial flow further
downstream. From its source near Buckhorn Mountain, Marias Creek flows easterly for approximately 7
miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek. Both brook trout and rainbow trout were visually observed in
Marias Creek. Although rainbow trout were visually observed near the Marias Creek confluence with
Toroda Creek, only 3 individual rainbow trout were encountered during the electrofishing survey work.
Brook trout were the primary species found during electrofishing surveys in Marias Creek. The
electrofishing survey determined that the upper limits of fish presence in Marias Creek was
approximately 5 miles upstream from the confluence with Toroda Creek.
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream. From its source on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain,
Nicholson Creek flows generally easterly for approximately 8 miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek.
Both brook trout and rainbow trout were visually observed in Nicholson Creek. An electrofishing survey
was conducted to confirm the visual observations, provide data on species composition, and determine
the upstream limit on fisheries. Although there appeared to be suitable fish habitat in the upper reaches
of Nicholson Creek, no fish were observed by either visual or electrofishing survey techniques above a
natural barrier located approximately 5 miles upstream of its confluence with Toroda Creek.
No threatened or endangered fisheries species are known to occur in Myers, Marias, or Nicholson Creeks
or any of their tributaries. Likewise, no anadromous fisheries species are known to occur in any of
these drainages.
3.13 WILDLIFE
Land use, land management and disturbance from human activities may directly affect the type,
amount, and quality of habitat available to wildlife. Changes in land use may be detrimental or beneficial
to wildlife. Wildlife response to disturbance, the activity of the individual prior to the disturbance, the
time of day and/or season, the proximity to the source of the disturbance, previous experience with the
disturbance, the mobility of the species, and sensitivity of the species or individual to the type of
disturbance.
The effects of noise on wildlife is emphasized because this represents the largest acreages and greatest
short-term potential disturbance to wildlife from the proposed Project. In general, existing noise levels
are relatively low in all but inhabited and farmed areas. Nonetheless, wildlife are subject to intermittent
episodes of noise disturbance primarily from logging, firewood cutting, farm machinery, aircraft, road
traffic and recreational activities.
Human presence in the study area is relatively low as few permanent residences occur outside of the
Myers Creek and Toroda Creek valleys. Seasonal activities do increase human presence during certain
times of the year, including forest management, firewood cutting and recreational activities.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-37
The existing light and glare in the study area is minimal based on the low population density there and
the distance from cities or activities that generate extensive artificial light.
Exiting road density over the wildlife analysis area is 2.23 miles per square mile. Road density within
the wildlife core area is 6.08 miles per square mile due to past mineral exploration activities and timber
harvest.
The study area is characterized by a wide range of wildlife habitats juxtaposed according to landscape
and micro-site conditions. Wildlife habitats in the core area is categorized by cover type, a habitat
definition based on successional stage, plant association and land use information. Wildlife habitats in
the analysis area were categorized by land type, a habitat definition based on general vegetation
composition and structure, and on land use.
The 10,962 acre wildlife core area consists of 1,675 acres (15.3%) upland grassland; 107 acres (1.0%)
bottomland grassland; 96 acres (0.3%) shrub; 887 acres (8.1%) early successional conifer (plantations);
2,178 acres (19.9%) mixed conifer poles; 4,526 aces (41.3%) mixed conifer mature; 40 acres (0.3%)
deciduous; 891 acres (8.1%) riparian/wetland; 106 acres (1.0%) lakes/ponds (mostly Beth and Beaver
Lakes); and 456 acres (4.1 %) of agriculture (Myers Creek valley).
The wildlife analysis area consists of 15,728 acres (21.6%) grassland/shrub; 25,824 acres (35.5%)
open coniferous/deciduous; 27,465 acres (37.8%) coniferous; 635 acres (0.9%) riparian/wetland/open
water; 2,949 acres (4.1%) agriculture; and 99 acres (0.1%) disturbed/residential.
3.14 NOISE
Three rounds of baseline noise monitoring were performed in the vicinity of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project. These involved measuring noise levels in August 1992, June 1993, and January 1994. Noise
monitoring was conducted at 5 locations: Chesaw townsite, near the Bolster area, along Toroda Creek
Road near Nicholson Creek Road, the Pine Chee area south of Chesaw, and at the undeveloped South
Corral area along the southern boundary of the Crown Jewel Project.
The wintertime noise levels were quieter than were the summertime levels. For example, the nighttime
average L-eq at Bolster was 36.8 dBA in the summertime, as compared to 30.6 dBA in the wintertime.
Similar results were found at the other monitoring stations.
3.15 RECREATION
There are no developed recreation facilities within or immediately surrounding the Crown Jewel Project
area. A number of undeveloped, dispersed recreation sites, however, have been observed near the
Project site. The undeveloped sites generally consist of undeveloped hunting camps or fire rings.
Outside the immediate area of the Crown Jewel Project, there are a variety of developed recreational
facilities, including Forest Service managed campgrounds, the Sitzmark alpine ski area, and the
Highlands nordic ski area. The local communities of Tonasket, Oroville, Republic and Curlew maintain a
variety of recreational facilities including parks, tennis courts, and ballfields.
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES
Buckhorn Mountain and the surrounding Okanogan Highlands landscape are characterized by moderately
steep topography, ranging from rugged, mountainous terrain to rolling hills. The area's hills and
mountains are characterized by broad, rounded summits. In the higher elevations, the landscape is
forested. Occasional clearings are apparent, some of which are natural and some of which are a result
of past or current logging and exploration operations. In the lower elevations, frequent clearings
dominate the landscape, used primarily for agricultural purposes.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental impact Statement
-------
Page S-38 SUMMARY June 1995
The summit of Buckhorn Mountain is not visible from Chesaw or the Bolster area, due to the proximity
of the base of the ridge. The Crown Jewel Project site is also not visible from the Canadian towns of
Midway and Rock Creek. Although the primary mine facilities would not be visible from any
communities, other Project features, such as the transmission line, would be visible along County Road
9480, between Oroville and south of Chesaw.
On the east, the Crown Jewel Project would be invisible from several locations along the Toroda Creek
Road, looking up the Nicholson Creek drainage. The Project site is not visible from Toroda Creek Road
south of Nicholson Creek, due to the steep hills rising immediately above the valley.
The Crown Jewel Project would be visible from British Columbia Highway 3, as it climbs out of the
Kettle River Valley, west of Rock Creek. East of Rock Creek, Highway 3 travels along the Kettle River
Valley, which is too low in elevation to provide views of Buckhorn Mountain.
The Crown Jewel Project would be visible from the top of Bonaparte Mountain and Graphite Mountain.
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES
Although the Crown Jewel Project site is probably located in the traditional territory of the Northern
Okanogan Indians, no evidence of prehistoric activity was recorded. All recorded sites, on or
surrounding Buckhorn Mountain, are related to historic mining activity. Sites included cabins, mining
complexes, dumps, and adits. The Gold Axe Camp has cabins potentially eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. Along the Crown Jewel Project power line corridor from Oroville to
the mine site, the Hee Hee Stone and an historic irrigation flume are also potentially eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places.
3.18 TRANSPORTATION
The major transportation routes servicing Okanogan County are U.S. Highway 97 (U.S. 97) and
Washington State Route 20 (SR 20). There are 5 main Okanogan County roads in the region. These
are CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road); CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road); CR 9467 (Tonasket -
Havillah Road); CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road); and CR 4883 (Bolster Road).
The Crown Jewel Project site is accessed via Forest Service roads from the north, the south and the
east. Access from the north is via Forest Road 3575 to Forest Road 3575-100 (Magnetic Mine Road)
and into the Project area. Forest Road 3575-100 provides access through the Project area and connects
back to Forest Road 3575 on the east along Nicholson Creek. From Forest Road 3575, access to the
Project area can also be via Forest Road 3575-150. Access to the Project area from the south is via
Forest Road 3575-120. Forest Road 3575-140 branches off from Forest Road 3575-120 south of the
Project area and proceeds toward the top of Buckhorn Mountain. Forest Road 3575-120 proceeds
through the Project area and intersects with Forest Road 3575-100 and Forest Road 3575-150.
3.19 LAND USE
Land uses within the region are logging, agriculture, residential development, recreation, mineral
exploration, and mining activities.
Logging has been one of the dominant land management uses in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel
Project, with about 8,000 acres having been logged over the past 35 years in and surrounding the
Crown Jewel Project site. Logging has occurred on both public and private lands in the general area.
Agricultural land uses are more prominent in the Okanogan Valley than in the immediate proposed
Project area; however, the Project area is subject to summer livestock grazing under permits from the
Forest Service, BLM, WADNR and private individuals. Agriculture in the Okanogan Highlands involves
livestock grazing with a small production of hogs, alfalfa hay, barley, oats, and winter and spring wheat.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-39
Residential development in the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project area is scattered along
Myers, Gold, Nicholson, Toroda and Bolster Creeks as well as on Pontiac Ridge south of the Project
area. In recent years, there have been several areas subdivided in 5 to 20 acre tracts for residences on
private ground south and west of Buckhorn Mountain. Residential uses within the general region are
typically concentrated in the nearby existing communities of Oroville, Tonasket, Omak, Okanogan,
Republic, and Curlew. Residential development and uses are also scattered throughout the rural portions
of both Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
Forest Service and BLM lands surrounding the Project area are subject to hunting, fishing, hiking,
camping, sightseeing and picnicking. Big game hunting for deer is probably the major source of
recreational use within the Project area.
3.20 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The socioeconomic study area was generally defined to include Okanogan and Ferry Counties. The
primary study area consisted of northeastern Okanogan County and western Ferry County including the
towns of Chesaw, Conconully, Oroville, Tonasket, Omak, Okanogan, and Riverside in Okanogan County,
and Republic and Curlew in Ferry County. The socioeconomic work included the analysis of the region's
population, employment, income, community and public services, housing, fiscal conditions, and social
values.
3.20.1 Population
As of the 1990 U.S. Census, Okanogan and Ferry Counties had a combined population of 39,645,
representing 0.8% of the population of the State of Washington. Population of the 2 county area
increased by 8.8% during the decade of the 1980s, equating to a compound growth rate of
approximately 0.8% per year. The largest city in the 2 counties is Omak, with over 4,100 residents.
All indications are that the rate of population growth is again accelerating for both Okanogan and Ferry
counties after relatively slow growth in the 1980s. For the 2 counties combined, the rate of population
growth averaged 2.1% per year from 1970-80, 0.8% annually from 1980-90, increasing to 1.8% per
year since 1990.
3.20.2 Housing
As of 1990, Ferry and Okanogan Counties had a combined total of just under 19,900 housing units.
While the majority of units are single-family detached residences, an important share are mobile homes.
While housing costs have increased substantially in the past few years, 1990 home prices in Ferry and
Okanogan County were only 54% of the statewide median house value. Between 1990 and 1992, a
total of 610 new housing units were added throughout Okanogan and Ferry counties.
A total of 194 units were identified as being on the market for sale or rent in the study area during the
period of late-August, early-September, 1993. These 194 units represent approximately 1.4% of the
total housing inventory in the study area. This 1993 vacancy figure of 1.5% compares to a 3.1 %
vacancy rate of units for sale or for rent, reported as of the 1990 U.S. Census. This data indicates that
the area's housing market tightened considerably in the 3-year period from 1990-1993, with vacancy
rates dropping to less than half of the 1990 level.
Apartments and homes for rent are extremely difficult to find throughout the study area; some
properties are rented by word-of-mouth and so not all vacancies are captured by this inventory. A
review of housing potential on a community-by-community basis indicates that developing housing in
most areas throughout the region is currently problematic. All of the incorporated communities face
some combination of topographic, water supply, sewer and/or flood plain constraints. The
Chesaw/Highlands rural area is affected by lack of potable water due to the difficulty of finding
productive domestic wells. The Curlew area of Ferry County appears to be one of the few rural
locations within the area with the near-term potential to support additional residential development.
down Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
PageS-40 SUMMARY June 1995
Recent actions being taken by the cities of Okanogan and Omak will better position these communities
to accommodate new residential development in future years. Okanogan has annexed land to the west,
and Omak has completed plans to expand the capacity of its municipal water system.
3.20.3 Employment
There are major differences in the composition of the employed labor force in Ferry and Okanogan
Counties. For example, as of the 1990 U.S. Census, approximately 20.5% of the Ferry County labor
force was employed in mining and construction versus 6.5% in Okanogan County. Conversely,
approximately 19.3% of the Okanogan County labor force was employed in agriculture versus 11.5% in
Ferry County.
Relatively high proportions of Okanogan and Ferry County residents are employed in agriculture, mining
and construction, and public administration jobs; while relatively low proportions are employed in
manufacturing, transportation, communications, public utilities, finance, insurance, real estate, and
services.
3.20.4 Income
As of the 1990 U.S. Census, median household income for Ferry County residents was $25,170 (81%
of the state median figure of $31,183). Median income in Okanogan County was $20,303 (65% of the
statewide median). Between 1980 and 1990, overall household incomes also increased more rapidly in
Ferry County ( + 72%) than in Okanogan County ( + 47%).
Within the socioeconomic area studied, median incomes vary considerably. Lowest median income
($16,134) is found in the Chesaw/Oroville area, which is only 52% of the statewide median income
figure. Chesaw/Oroville also has a relatively high proportion of the population (28%) who have incomes
that are below poverty level. This proportion is dramatically higher than the 11 % of the population
statewide with incomes below poverty level.
It is noted that reported income data alone does not provide a complete picture of economic activity in
the area. Particularly in the Chesaw/Highlands area, a substantial amount of barter activity is indicated.
As in other rural areas, some cash income is generated that may go unreported. For these reasons, the
local standard of living may be higher than is indicated by published income data alone.
Highest wages on a per-employee basis are paid in mining (over $38,800 per employee), followed by
federal government employment at over $27,300 per employee, and then transportation,
communication, public utilities and state government employment. Lowest average payrolls are in retail
trade (under $9,800 per employee) and agriculture (less than $7,800).
3.20.5 Community & Public Services
Education
Six public school districts provide K-12 education services within the socioeconomic study area. The
Okanogan, Omak, Oroville and Tonasket districts serve the Okanogan County portion of the
socioeconomic study area; and Curlew and Republic serve the Ferry County portion. Total enrollment of
these 6 districts is just over 6,300 students. Combined, the Omak, Okanogan, Oroville and Tonasket
districts account for almost 85% of enrollment.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement services are provided for the rural unincorporated portions of the study area by the
Okanogan and Ferry County sheriff departments. Most of the incorporated cities have their own police
departments. However, Okanogan contracts with the sheriff's office for law enforcement services. The
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S 41
Okanogan County Sheriff also provides dispatch services for Omak, Okanogan and Riverside (but not
Oroville and Tonasket).
Fire Protection
Fire protection for the more-populated portions of the area is provided by 5 city and 8 rural fire districts
in Okanogan County, and by the Curlew district together with the City of Republic/Republic District in
Ferry County. The cities generally have cooperative relationships, including joint staffing with the rural
districts.
Ambulance Services
Ambulance and related emergency transportation transport services are provided in a variety of ways in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. Most of the city fire departments assist with emergency medical services
(EMS). The Oroville EMS District provides emergency transport services within the northern portion of
Okanogan County; Ferry County EMS District #1 provides service from the Canadian border south to
the Col vide Indian Reservation. Tonasket also provides ambulance service.
Hospital & Medical Services
Hospitals located within the study area are the Mid Valley Hospital in Omak, North Valley Hospital in
Tonasket, and Ferry County Memorial Hospital in Republic. North Valley also operates a medical clinic in
Oroville. All of the hospitals are tax-supported, each with its own property tax base. Combined, the 3
hospitals have a total of 76 acute care beds available. Hospital occupancy ranges from 20% to less
than 45%.
Social Services
As in most urban and rural communities, a variety of social service programs are available in both
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. Comprehensive listings of social service providers and activities are
difficult to develop because providers include a mix of state, federal, county and local agencies; non-
profit organizations ranging from churches to non-profit organizations contracting with government
agencies; and private providers such as counselors.
Water Supply
Public water supply systems in the socioeconomic study area are currently provided by a mix of local
municipalities and community systems. With the exception of a few community systems, most rural
area residents rely on their own domestic well systems. Identifying community systems is problematic
as some are informally organized.
The incorporated communities of Oroville, Omak, Republic, Riverside and Tonasket have adequate water
capacity to serve additional development, as does the community system for unincorporated Curlew.
The immediate Chesaw area has a privately-owned community water system; the surrounding area
depends on private domestic wells.
Wastewater Treatment
The only identified sanitary, storm and related wastewater treatment systems in Okanogan and Ferry
counties are operated by local municipalities. Some municipalities, such as Riverside, do not provide
sewer as residents are on septic systems.
The sewer systems and wastewater treatment facilities for Okanogan and Republic are operating at, or
close to capacity, although Republic can accommodate a doubling of population once repairs are
completed. Conconully, Omak, Oroville and Tonasket have capacity to accommodate additional
residential development.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental impact Statement
-------
Page S-42 SUMMARY June
Solid Waste
Both Okanogan and Ferry counties operate landfill facilities. As is the case throughout the state, local
landfills are reaching capacity and facing environmental and regulatory issues.
Social Values
Major change is taking place in the region due to a number of circumstances. An influx of population
has not only put additional stress on housing and land use, but has introduced a wider variety of social
values. To simply list the categories of recent immigrants there are:
Educated wilderness migrants;
Hispanic/migrant workers
Retired middle-class migrants; and,
Urban refugees.
This region seems to be attractive to these new "migrants" because of a number of factors including the
area's natural beauty, low land costs, sparse population, minimal land use controls, and low cost of
living. The diverse values of these "new people" sometimes conflict with the more historic and
traditional values of the area.
3.20.6 Land Ownership
Approximately 77% of the land in Okanogan County (as of 1989) and 82% of Ferry County is owned by
the federal government or is part of the Colville Indian Reservation. Reservation lands are located in the
southern half of both counties, east of the Okanogan River, and managed by the Colville Confederated
Tribes and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Crown .tevr8 »>
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-43
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The analyses of environmental consequences for the Crown Jewel Project assumes that the mitigation
and reclamation measures proposed for the Project would be implemented and maintained. A
comparison of impacts for the Crown Jewel Project is presented in Table S-10, Summary of Impacts for
Each Alternative by Issue. Brief summarizations of the effects for each resource area are highlighted in
the following.
4.1 AIR QUALITY
Each of the action alternatives would cause a short-term increase in fugitive dust within and near the
Crown Jewel Project area during construction and operations. The predicted pollutant concentrations
would be localized and confined to the vicinity of the operation. No measurable increases in Project-
related pollutant concentrations would be expected in the communities of Chesaw, Bolster, or Midway
(British Columbia).
Assuming air control measures are implemented as required (and enforced) by state and federal
regulatory agencies, no major short or long-term impacts outside the area would be anticipated under
any alternative. Roadside dust along unpaved access roads could be an irritant to other traffic and
forest users, but would not greatly affect area air quality.
None of the alternatives would emit enough particulates or water vapor to cause cloud formation,
fogging or icing which might otherwise contribute to local weather impacts.
The Project emissions would not adversely effect visibility at the Pasayten Wilderness Area or any other
Class I airsheds.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
The completion of the Crown Jewel Project would bring a noticeable topographic change in the
immediate area of Buckhorn Mountain. The degree of topographic impact would be a function of the
acreage disturbed, the type of mining, the final configuration of the open pit, waste rock disposal piles,
tailings facility, and the extent of subsidence that develops over underground mine workings. The
variations in acreage are shown on Table S-9, Acreage Summary Comparison. The topographic changes
caused by any of the action alternatives would be long-term, but the regrading and recontouring aspects
of the reclamation efforts would be conducted to blend the disturbed areas into the adjacent undisturbed
terrain.
For Alternatives D, E, and G, some "reclamation" blasting would be conducted in an attempt to create a
post-mining appearance of cliffs and talus slopes to minimize the artificial rectilinear topographic
appearance of the open pit mine. Alternative F would require that all waste rock be returned to the pit;
this action could result in Buckhorn Mountain being slightly higher than its pre-mining state. Alternative
C and Alternative D involve underground mining that could lead to surface subsidence. Subsidence
areas would probably have unstable edges and steep internal slopes.
Waste rock disposal piles would be configured to eliminate rectilinear features. In Alternative B, the
north and south disposal piles would have overall 21-1:1 V slopes. In all the other action alternatives,
waste rock disposal piles would have overall 3H:1 V slopes which would cause the waste rock disposal
piles to cover larger areas than if they were at steeper slopes. Flatter slopes, such as 3H:1 V, are easier
to re vegetate.
All alternatives, except A, would have a tailings facility. In Alternatives B, C, D, and E the facility would
be located in the Marias Creek drainage and be 84 to 87 acres in size. Alternative F and G tailings
facilities would be located in the Nicholson Creek drainage and be 157 or 137 acres, respectively.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
TABLE S-10, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
AIR QUALITY
Tons of TSP produced Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Tota
Tons of PM10 produced Yearly
(Operation Phase) Tota
Tons of HCN produced Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Total
Tons of NO( produced Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Tota
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
None
None
Unknown
Unknown
521
4, 1 68
160
1,303
0073
0 56
326
2,608
Yearly - more than
A.F; less than
B,D,E,G.
Total - more than A;
less than B,D,E,F,G
31
144
Yearly - more than
A.F.G, Less than
B,D,E.
Total - more than
A,G, less than
B.D.E.F
Yearly - more than
A; less than
B,D,E,F,G
Total - more than A,
less than B,D,E,F,G
Yearly - more than
A,C,F; less than
B,E,G
Total - more than
A,C, less than
B.E.F.G
89
558
Yearly - more than
A,C,F,G, less than
B,E.
Total - more than
A,C,G, less than
B.E.F
Yearly - more than
A,C, less than
B,E,F,G
Total - more than
A,C; less than
B,E,F,G
521
4,168
160
1,303
0.073
0 56
326
2,608
279
8,940
88
2,582
0.0365
0 56
163
5,218
573
4,583
184
1,495
0
0
More than other
Alts, due to
trucks hauling
ore concentrate
to Oroville 24
hr/day
ENERGY
Gallons of petroleum products Annual
Total
kWh of electricity used Annual
Total
< 1,000 gal
< 1,000 gal
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1,204,500 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
< 700,000 gal
2,800,000 gal
63 million
252 million
< 1,000,000 gal
5,800,000 gal
63 million
378 million
1,204,000 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
600,000 gal
19,000,000 gal
42 million
672 million
> 2,400,000 gal
19,000,000 gal
63 million
504 million
FISH POPULATIONS AND HABITAT
Predicted impact to spawning habitat
None
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
GEOCHEMISTRY (Key Issue)
Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock disposal
areas
Potential for release of radioactive materials (alpha and beta
emissions)
Potential for release of tailings materials or interstitial liquids
into ground/surface waters
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low
Low
Low
Low
Negligible
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
LOW
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL (Key Issue)
Safety Factors Waste Pock Slopes
Tailings Embankment
Pit Walls
Acres of potential ground subsidence through
underground mining
Not Applicable
None
1 35-1.8
1 5
1 2
None
2 7
1.5
No Pit
27
2.7
1 5
1 2
3
2 7
1.5
1 2
None
2.7
1.5
1.2
None
2 7
1 5
1 2
None
to
fc
I
33
to
Ol
-------
TABLE S-10, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Potential for rock slides or unstable pit wall conditions
after rmning
A
Not Applicable
B
Low
Alternative
C
No Pit
D
Moderate
E
Moderate
F
No pit walls left
exposed
Q
Moderate
HERITAGE RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES
No. of known historic sites impacted
Acres not available to native Americans
None
None
6
835
6
720
6
770
7
1 055
7
885
7
925
LAND USE
Acres disturbed by ownership Forest Service
BLM
State of Washington
Private
Number of acres of public land under patent application
54 6
3 3
0
No Record
Not Applicable
470
184
20
92
925
273
78
20
69
< 925
289
153
20
100
< 925
574
195
47
111
> 925
526
153
38
105
> 925
546
198
44
108
> 925
NOISE
Summertime noise levels Chesaw
(Prevailing Condition, nighttime) Bolster
Wintertime noise levels Chesaw
(prevailing Condition, nighttime) Bolster
Peak noise levels Chesaw
Bolster
39
37
32
31
57
54
39
37
38
41
59
59
Not Modeled
Not Modeled
43
Not Modeled
57
54
39
37
38
41
59
59
39
37
38
41
59
59
39
37
32
31
59
59
39
37
38
41
59
59
RECLAMATION (Key Issue)
Percentage of final slopes that are: Steeper than 2H:1V
2H 1V
2.5H 1V
3H-1V or flatter
Acres/percentage of south facing slopes needing reclamatior
Acres of disturbance needing reclamation
Not applicable,
areas to be
reclaimed are roads
None
55
< 10%
50%
20%
20%
47 ac (7%)
604
< 10 %
1 0-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
6 ac (1%)
416
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
9 ac (2%)
460
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
9 ac (1 %)
812
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
0 ac (O%)
775
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
16ac (2%)
741
SCENIC RESOURCES
No of high-powered lights visible at night from
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
B C Highway 3
Visual Quality Objectives met by Project
0
0
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste areas}
0
0
Yes
Vary from 0 to 3,
not visible on
continual basis
Yes
Vary from 0 to 3,
not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste Areas)
0
0
No
(Waste Area!
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste Area)
SOCIOECONOMICS (Key Issue)
Person-years of employment Annual
Life-of-Project
Payroll Annual
Life-of- Project
Anticipated peak population increase
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
< 5
< 5
Not Projected
0
0
150
1,500
$1.85 - 7 4 mm
$53 4 mm
180
208
225
950
$1 95 - 8 8 mm
$44 6 mm
273
406
225
1,650
$1.95 - 8 8 mm
$62 3 mm
230
363
150
1 675
$2 8 - 7 35 mm
$59 9 mm
180
208
125
3,450
$2 85 - 7 35 mm
$127 2 mm
180
208
210
1,980
$1 85 - 7.8 mm
$71 3 mm
180
222
o
1
fe
1
CO
-------
1 TABLE S-10, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Anticipated peak new school enrollment
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Aiticipated permanent new housing
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated tax revenues after expenditures
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
Not Projected
B
17
41
30
63
$15 7 mm
S21 5 mm
C
56
91
135
183
$106 mm
$146 mm
D
48
83
113
160
$142 mm
$196 mm
E
17
41
30
63
$157 mm
$21 5 mm
F
16
36
24
53
$31 6 mm
$43 3 mm
G
22
55
42
87
$147 mm
$20 3 mm
SOILS (Key Issue)
Acres of topsoi! removal
Percent of soil available for reclamation at 1 2 ' and 1 8"
depths
55
Not Applicable
604
113%
416
87%
460
119%
812
1 1 9 %
775
106%
741
120%
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER (Key Issue)
Nurnber of springs/seeps directly affected
L neai feet of existing stream channels impacted
» Gold Bowl Creek
Marias Creek
» Nicholson Creek
Decreases in area stream flows (est)
Nicholson Creek
confluence w/ Toroda Creek)
Manas Creek
(confluence w/ Toioda Creek)
Bolster Creek
(Confluence w/ Myers Creek)
Gold Creek
Estimated life-of-mine water use
(acre feet)
None
None
None
None
None
None
7
2,300
3,550
2,025
1 7-4 1 %
1 1-3.4%
5 2-8 6%
2 2-6 0%
5,960-5,992
5
1,350
3,550
None
1 7-4 1 %
1 1-3 4%
5 2-8 6%
2 2-6 0%
2,903-3,119
6
1,550
3,550
550
1 7-4 1 %
1 1-34%
5 2-8 6%
2 2-6 0%
4,337-4,572
9
1,500
3,550
3,900
1 7-4 1 %
1.1-3 4%
5.2-8.6%
2 2-6 0%
5,804-6,100
8
1,500
None
8,525
1 7-4.1%
1.1-34%
5 2-8.6%
2 2-6 0%
9,745-12,190
10
1,500
None
8,300
1 7-4.1%
1.1-34%
5 2-8 6%
2 2-6 0%
11,008-18,956
TRANSPORTATION
Additional number of vehicles per day
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Percent increase in traffic during operations phase
Orovilie Totoda Creek Road
Pontiac Ridge Road
0
0
12
4%
240%
282
51
20
7 13%
1020%
282
57
20
20%
1 140%
282
59
20
7-16%
1180%
282
51
20
7-13%
1020%
282
45
26
4-13%
920%
282
77
20
27%
1540%
USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS (Key Issue) !i
fi timated Annual/total use of
Sodium cyanide (ton)
Cement/lime (ton)
Lead nitrate (ton)
Sodium nitrate (ton)
Ammonium nitrate (ton)
Hydrochloric acid (ton)
Caustic (ton)
Copper sulfate (ton)
Diesel fuel (gal)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
= 500
1,700/13,600
8,000/64,000
170/ 1,360
3/ 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1,660
53/ 424
1 2 mm/9 6 mm
1,020/ 4,080
8,000/64,000
1 0O/ 400
21 8
1.920/ 7,680
1 30/ 520
1 25,' 500
32/ 1 30
= 7mm/2 8mm
1.360/ 8,160
8,000/64,000
1 40/ 840
3/ 18
2,660/15,360
140/ 1,080
170/ 1,020
40/ 240
~ 1 mm/5 8mm
1,700/13,600
8,000/64,000
170/ 1,360
3/ 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1,660
53/ 424
1 2mm/9 6mm
850/13,600
4,000/64 000
85/ 1,360
1 5/ 24
1,600/25,600
110/ 1,760
103/ 1,660
26/ 424
= .6mm/19mm
None
None
None
None
'3,200/25,600
None
None
None jj
2 4mm/1 9 2mm Ij
(Q
C6
CO
I
=0
-------
TABLE S-10, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
VEGETATION (Key Issue)
Number of T&E plants lost
Number of sensitive plants lost
Timber removed (MMBF)
Estimated annual AUM's {animal unit months) of grazing lost
0
0
0
0
0
2,533
5 3
84
0
2,510
3 1
72
0
2,510
4 1
77
0
2,567
7 0
106
0
349
6.2
89
0
328
6 8
93
WETLANDS (Key Issue)
Acres of wetlands lost
WILDLIFE (Key IssueMlmpacts during mining and reclamation
0
3 39 I 315
3 16
3 18
0 92
5.42
fr
-------
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE.
II Existing Conditions || Alternative B II Alternative C
Wildlife Species and Habitat
Pacific Fisher potential
preferred
avoided
California Wolverine suitable
North American Lynx travel'
foraging7
denning7
non cover7
Townsend's Big Eared Bat foraging
potential roost trees
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential post fledging/family area
foraging
Acres
5,078
1,388
794
4,526
3,818
254
13
2,862
6,074
3,538
614
2,509
5,076
Percent of
Core Area
48
13
8
44
35
2
0
28
58
34
6
24
49
Acret
843
248
507
576
426
-27
-2
377
710
401
144
361
613
Percent
Change
-13
18
64
-13
12
-11
15
13
12
11
23
14
12
Acres
-565
-216
418
-501
322
17
-2
270
602
351
-146
272
531
Percent
Change
11
16
53
-11
g
-7
15
9
-10
10
-24
11
10
I Alternative D
Acres
591
203
794
524
386
30
2
338
658
359
139
311
560
Percent
Change
-12
15
100
12
11
-12
15
12
11
10
23
12
-11
Alternative E
Acres
791
278
625
708
533
40
-3
482
-889
528
145
473
761
Percent
Change
16
20
79
16
15
16
23
17
15
L_ '15
24
-19
15
Alterni
Acres
-728
162
722
839
-515
-48
3
481
-828
383
102
420
-697
live F || Allarn
Percent Acres
Change ||
14
12
91
14
14
19
23
17
14
10
-17
17
-14
-721
145
734
626
-547
55
-3
522
-821
424
79
430
691
alive G
Percent
Change
14
10
92
14
15
22
-23
18
14
12
13
17
-14
Notes: 1. Based on TWHIP data
2 Based on Habitat above 4,000 feet in the core area
CO
CO
SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS.
Element
SUCCESSIONAL STAGE DIVERSITY:
T40N A3 IE: Grass IFwb
Seedhng (Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
T40N R30E: GrasslForb
SccdIins/Saplins
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
OLD-GROWTH:
T40N R31E: Existing
Replacement
Total
Forest Plan
Standard
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
>5%
no threshold
>5%
925 acres
Values' || Status' '
Existing
Condition
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
Alternative
A
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
B
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
13%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
C
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
91*
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
D
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
a%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
E 1 *
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
18%
8%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
14%
9%
11%
34%
26%
11%
0
11%
1.767
G
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
15%
9%
11%
34%
25%
12%
0
12%
1.802
Existing
Condition
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
Alternative
A | S I C | D
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
NC
A-
A
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A +
NC
A-
A
A-
NC
E
C +
C
NC
A-
NC
A +
NC
A-
A
A
NC
F | G
C+
C
NC
A
A-
NC
NC
A
A
NC
A
C +
C
NC
A
A
fl +
NC
A
A
A
A-
to
to
Ul
-------
Element
T40N R30E: Existing
Replacement
Total
ROAD DENSITY
MA14-16
MA14-17
MA14-18
MAR19
MA25-18
MA2B-13
MA?B-1R
Forest Plan
Standard
>5%
no threshold
25%
203 acres
20 milml'
20 mi/mi'
20 mi/mi'
20 milmi2
30 miltai'
1 0 mi/mi2
Values' || status' '
Existing
Condition
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
373
27
43
Alternative
A
4%
D
4%
149
21
25
41
30
2.5
43
B
3%
0
3%
125
21
25
41
0.0
23
43
C
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
00
24
43
D
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
06
2.3
43
E
2%
0
2%
99
21
25
41
00
2 2
43
F
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
19
1 2
43
G
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
08
2 2
43_
Exitting
Condition
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
C +
A +
NC
B I C
C-
1 NC_
NC
NC
, Bi_
A*
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B*
A+
NC
D 1 E
NC
NC
NC_
NC
B*
A+
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B+
A+
NC
F
NC
NC
NC
NC
B+
At
NC
G
NC_
NC
NC
NC
1 B+_
A*
NC
Notes: ' Shaded cells indicate a change from existing conditions. Boldmg indicates the element would be reduced from existing conditions.
2 A + indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines and value would increase,
A- indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines, would be reduced, but would still meet standards and guidelines'
B+ indicates the element is below standards and guidelines, value would increase and would meet standards and guidelines;
C+ indicates the element is currently below standards and guidelines, would increase in value but not meet standards and guidelines d e., value would increase but status
would not};
C- indicates the element is currently below minimum standards and guidelines and would be reduced further
NC indicates no change from existing conditions.
-------
PageS-50 SUMMARY June 1995
4.3 GEOLOGY/CHEMISTRY
In all action alternatives, a varying amount of geologic material (ore and waste rock) would be removed,
altered and/or rearranged. Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove and/or relocate about 61 million
cubic yards of ore and waste rock, Alternative D about 24 million yards, and Alternative C would move
about 4.8 million cubic yards. The removal and relocation of ore and waste rock material would affect
the surface topography of the area, through the construction of tailings and waste rock disposal
facilities.
All action alternatives have a low potential for acid and leachate discharge, and adverse impacts are not
predicted under any alternative. During operations, the tailings impoundment would contain leachate
with WAD cyanide levels less than 10 ppm, and this facility would be designed and operated to prevent
a discharge or leak of this material.
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
An earthquake, greater than a magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale, could result in damage or destruction
of Crown Jewel Project facilities and release chemicals into the environment. The damage, destruction,
or chemical contamination would vary depending on the severity of the earthquake event. Although it is
possible for an earthquake to occur in the region, the potential for damage to a Crown Jewel Project
facility and release of chemicals or tailings material would be eliminated or minimized through proper
engineering design and construction.
No active faults are known to exist in the Project area. There is a low potential for damaging seismic
activity.
Waste rock disposal areas are designed to meet or exceed factors of safety on the order of 1.2 static
and 1.1 dynamic (pseudo-static). Waste rock disposal areas in Alternative B are designed with a factor
of safety of 1.35 static and 1.06 dynamic on the north area and 1.35 static and 0.9 dynamic on the
south waste rock disposal area. All other alternatives waste rock disposal areas are designed with
factors of safety of 2.7 static and 1.6 dynamic.
4.5 SOILS
All of the action alternatives would impact the soil resources of the Project area. The degree of impact
would depend on the acreage and configuration of the proposed disturbance. The potential for soil
erosion would be highest immediately after disturbance, and highest on steeper slopes but would
decrease gradually over the life of the operation. Proper design and maintenance of sediment control
measures and reclamation scheduling would minimize impacts to soil resources and sedimentation of
area streams.
Stockpiling of soil would cause some changes in soil chemical and physical characteristics due to
blending during salvage operations, as well as a reduction in soil microbial populations. Given proposed
soil handling plans of replacing 12 and 18 inches on regraded areas, sufficient soil exists on-site to
reclaim the disturbed areas of all alternatives except Alternative C which has an estimated shortage of
62,000 cubic yards.
The potential for wind erosion at the proposed Project area is low.
4.6 GROUND WATER
All of the action alternatives would have varying degrees of ground water impacts in the Project area.
The degree of impact would depend on the mining method, the location and acreage of the various
facilities, and the reclamation plans.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-51
All action alternatives would cause dewatering in the immediate area surrounding the mine. In the open
pit alternatives (Alternatives B, D, E, F, and G), ground water would be dewatered ahead of mining
and/or pumped from a sump area within the mine pit. In the underground mine alternatives (Alternative
C and D), ground water would drain to a sump in the lowest portion of the underground workings and
be pumped to the surface and/or would drain directly out of the adits. All non process water discharge
would be subject to effluent limits in a water quality permits and, if necessary, would be routed to
surface treatment facilities and/or used for non process milling purposes. Water quality would be
monitored. As a result of dewatering, ground water levels would decline, causing reduced flows or loss
of springs, seeps, and reduced streamflow in the immediate Project area. Based on the extent of ground
water drawdown, 13 to 22 spring and seep sites could be directly and indirectly impacted. The zone of
influence from mine dewatering would be limited due to the mine location at the top of the watershed
and the relatively low hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock strata. During and immediately after closure
of mining operations, ground water would continue to flow toward the mine. The ground water regime
would eventually establish equilibrium conditions.
After mine closure, water would flow into the open pit (Alternatives B, D and G) forming a post-mining
pit lake; this lake would fill to the point of discharge to the Gold Bowl drainage in 7 to 13 years after
completion of mining. Flows from the mine pit lake into the Gold Bowl drainage would range from
approximately 135 to 177 gpm. Some of the pit lake water would be lost to evaporation. The pit lake
overflow could cause some erosion to the Gold Bowl drainage and, during high-flow periods, result in
some down drainage sediment loading.
The open or backfilled underground mine workings would be more permeable than the surrounding in-
place rock and, therefore, would create a pathway for ground water flow. This flow could be enhanced
by fracturing of surrounding rock and caving, which could lead to surface subsidence, thereby
establishing a direct available pathway for surface water recharge into the abandoned workings. After
completion of underground mining, water would continue to drain from the mine adits with flows
ranging from 58 to 141 gpm. This situation would mirror the water discharges currently observed from
the historic (abandoned) underground mines on Buckhorn Mountain.
Alternative E would involve a partial backfill of the mine pit; therefore, no final pit lake would form.
Ground water flowing into the backfilled pit would slowly saturate the waste rock placed in the pit and
ground water levels would reach an equilibrium in approximately 2 to 6 years. The discharge of water
from the partial backfill in the mine pit would largely occur in the form of springs and seeps at the low
point of the pit crest in the Gold Bowl drainage.
In Alternative F, complete backfilling of the open pit would eliminate any final pit lake. Surface water
discharged from the backfilled pit area would occur as springs and seeps along the northeast side of the
pit (similar to Alternative E) in the Gold Bowl drainage.
Impacts to ground water quality from the mining operations are predicted to vary depending on the
mining method used. Overall post-mining water quality is estimated to be slightly alkaline and have
moderate to high levels of total dissolved solids. No ARD (acid rock drainage) is anticipated. Ground
water monitoring would continue after mine closure to assure compliance with permitting requirements.
4.7 SURFACE WATER
Sedimentation from site development activities would be common to all action alternatives.
Construction activities would temporarily increase sedimentation; the degree that this sedimentation
affects drainages below the operations would depend on the effectiveness of the drainage and sediment
control measures implemented and maintained by the Proponent.
The potential for waste rock to generate acid or toxic drainage is low. Because the predictions are not
perfectly conclusive, short and long-term monitoring is proposed to detect changes in water quality. If
acid or toxic drainage does occur, the Proponent would be responsible for treatment to meet appropriate
standards.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-52 SUMMARY June 1995
The tailings facilities, in all action alternatives, has a very low potential of predictable leakage. The risk
of catastrophic leaks is also low. No adverse impacts to water or surface resources are expected.
The potential environmental consequences of acid or toxic spills could cause an acute, short-term water
quality degradation. The extent of damage would depend on the kind and amount of material spilled as
well as the location of the spill, time of day, time of year, and the weather conditions at the time of the
spill. The potential, albeit low, exists that a spill could eliminate aquatic life in one of the area's
streams. If a spill does occur, the Proponent and/or the shipper would be responsible for clean-up and
any damage to the environment.
During operations, some alteration of surface (and ground) water flow regimes would be expected for all
action alternatives. Removal of vegetation and soil from the facilities, pits, waste rock dumps and other
associated disturbance would increase the quantity and rapidity of surface water runoff and reduce
ground water recharge and storage. However, much of this runoff would be intercepted by the mine pit
and sediment control facilities, and impacts would be expected to be minor under any alternative. Some
minor reductions in streamflow could be theoretically expected in the drainages from Buckhorn
Mountain, but such reductions are projected to be low.
The minimum and maximum total average annual flow reductions for the total drainage areas due to
baseflow reduction and losses of overland flow would be 1.7% to 4.1 % for Nicholson Creek, 1.1 % to
3.4% for Marias Creek, 5.2% to 8.6% for Bolster Creek, and 2.2% to 6% for Gold Creek for open pit
mining. The minimum to maximum total average annual flow reductions for all of the Buckhorn
Mountain drainages would be 2.5% to 5.5%.
The potential impact of underground mining on area streamflows would be primarily due to baseflow
reduction. Overland flow would not be impacted. As a result, the minimum and maximum total average
annual flow reduction for the total drainage areas due to underground mining were calculated to be
0.9% to 1.5% for Nicholson Creek, 0.9% to 2.8% for Marias Creek, 4.9% to 7.6% for Bolster Creek,
and 2.2% to 6% for Gold Creek. The minimum to maximum total average annual flow reductions for all
of the Buckhorn Mountain drainages would be 2.2% to 4.5%.
The potential impacts of mining on area stream flows were estimated to be less than the natural
variability of flows due to climatic changes. The mean annual variations for Buckhorn Mountain
drainages are typically greater than 30%.
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS
Water for the Crown Jewel Project would be obtained from the transfer of existing agricultural
(irrigation) water rights to the Proponent and from new appropriations for industrial uses.
A water right is a private property right legitimated by a legal instrument from the WADOE authorizing
beneficial use of a designated amount of water from a specific source and used in a specified location
for a particular use. In the State of Washington, a water right certificate is required from WADOE if the
water diversion is from surface water, or if the diversion of ground water exceeds more than 5,000
gallons per day.
Water use at the Crown Jewel Project would be a temporary use that would cease once the operation is
decommissioned and reclaimed. The duration of water use would vary with the proposed life of each
action alternative. Water would be used for 6 years in Alternative C, while the duration of water use for
Alternative F would be 33 years. Alternative B would use water for 10 years. The projected water
requirements are presented on Table S-11, Estimated Water Usage Requirements.
For the action alternatives, the highest annual average use of water would occur with Alternative G
while the lowest annual average water use would occur with Alternative F.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
TABLE S-11. ESTIMATED WATER USAGE REQUIREMENTS1
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction
11
0
50-60
25-30
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
Start-Up
Mine
(gpm)
0
1122
60-90
80-100
100-120
80-100
125-150
Mill
(gpm)
0
2682
2682
2682
2682
100-200
500-1000
Domestic
(gpm)
0
142
15-20
15-20
15
10-15
15
Normal Operations
Mine
(gpm)
0
1122
60-90
80-100
100-120
80-100
125-150
Mill
(gpm)
0
2912
2912
2912
2912
100-200
500-1000
Domestic
(gpm)
0
15
15-20
15-20
15
10-15
15
Reclamation
0
50-60
25-30
50-60
50-60
80-100
50-60
Estimated Total
Water Usage for
Life-of-Mine3
(acre-feet)
0
5517-5549
2502-2647
3860-4134
5363-5654
7049-10807
8420-15227
Notes: gpm means gallons per minute.
1 . Except as noted in (2), water usage requirements estimated by TerraMatrix Inc.
2. Estimated Water Usage from Battle Mountain Gold Company.
3. To calculate acre feet for life of opeiation gpm x 8.0208 = cu ft/hr;
(cu ft/hr) -r (43560) x (24 hr/day) x (365 days/year) = acre ft/year.
4. TOTAL LIFE OF MINE ACRE-FEET = Construction + Start-up + Normal Operations + Reclamation.
r
«*
to
to
01
i
i
i
2s
GO
01
-------
Page S-54 SUMMARY June 1995
The volume of water used would also vary depending on the phase of the operation. The maximum
utilization of water would occur during operational start-up because there would be no water in the
milling circuit or the tailings facility. This situation could be compared to "priming of a pump", where
sufficient water must be added to the system in order to initiate the process. Also, as part of the
operational start-up, water would be needed to fill the Starrem Creek reservoir.
4.9 VEGETATION
Project development would result in clearing of vegetation from all action alternatives. Anticipated
effects to vegetation would be directly related to the estimated acres of disturbance for each action
alternative. Alternative C would disturb the least amount of vegetation (440 acres) while Alternative E
would disturb the greatest amount of vegetation (927 acres). At mine closure, disturbed areas would be
stabilized and reclaimed according to federal and state approved reclamation plans. With the exception
of the final pit area (Alternatives B, D, E, and G) and any surface subsidence created above the
underground mining activities (Alternatives C and D), vegetation is expected to re-establish on stabilized
reclaimed areas.
Timber impacts would result from the removal of timber in the Project area; the amount of timber logged
would vary depending on the acreage and location of the proposed disturbance. This logging is not
expected to result in a major change in timber availability in the Okanogan National Forest as the
Proponent is committed to purchasing the timber and making it available on the local markets at
competitive prices.
Long-term impacts to timber availability would result from the final open pit area (Alternatives B, D, E,
and G) and the surface subsidence areas (Alternatives C and D). It would take up to 100 years to re-
establish mature timber stands on the reclaimed areas (other than the pit and surface subsidence areas),
similar to, but about 1 5 years slower than, other sites logged in the region.
All action alternatives would result in losses of grazing range during Project construction, operation and
reclamation. Over the long-term, it is anticipated that reclamation under all action alternatives would
restore the grazing capacity; however, grazing patterns would be changed depending on the acreage and
configuration of the proposed disturbances, as well as the length of time to complete the operation and
initiate reclamation.
Areas disturbed by the Project, in the short and long-term, could be invaded by undesirable or noxious
weeds. If requirements for revegetation and treatment, to prevent or eliminate noxious weeds are
implemented, all action alternatives are predicted to have low incidence of noxious weed invasion.
No Federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant species are known to occur in the vicinity
of the Project. Two species listed on the Region 6, Regional Forester's sensitive species list (Listera
borealis, Platanthera obtusata) could be affected by the Crown Jewel Project; however, the loss of
sensitive plants predicted for any of the action alternatives would be unlikely to affect the forest viability
of these species.
4.10 WETLANDS
A varying acreage of wetlands would be directly impacted by all of the action alternatives, as follows:
Alternative B - 3.39 acres;
Alternative C - 3.15 acres;
Alternative D - 3.16 acres;
Alternative E - 3.18 acres;
Alternative F - 0.92 acres; and,
Alternative G - 5.42 acres.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-55
Project activities could also have an indirect effect on wetlands.
Any impacts to wetlands would be mitigated through avoidance, replacement, enhancement or
restoration of wetland habitats.
4.11 AQUATIC RESOURCES
Short-term, local increases in turbidity and suspended sediments would occur during initial construction,
road building or road improvements and other earth-moving activities in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
drainages. These increases should be kept to a minimum using best management practices.
Sedimentation could result in habitat losses. Sediment yields are expected to quickly stabilize once
construction is underway and mitigation measures are implemented. With proper design and
maintenance drainage and detention structures, as regulated by federal and state standards, the risk of
long-term impacts to aquatic resources is low for any of the action alternatives.
Damage to surface water and aquatic resources from acid or toxic drainage or spills is not predicted
during the construction or operation of the mine. In the unlikely event that such a release or spill
occurs, potential effects would consist of short-term adverse effects on aquatic biota in the affected
stream. The severity of such potential effects would depend on the size and nature of the spill, as well
as the location of the spill, time of day, time of the year, and the stream affected.
In the long-term, the final mine pit lake (Alternatives B, D, and G) has the potential to contain low levels
of metals such as silver and cadmium that may exceed EPA chronic life criteria. Adverse impacts from
the predicted low concentrations might preclude establishment of aquatic biota in any final mine pit
Lake, but down drainage impacts would be low. If necessary, the Proponent would be required to treat
prior to discharge to ensure federal and state water quality standards are not exceeded.
No federal or state listed threatened, endangered or sensitive aquatic or macro invertebrate species are
known to occur or have been found in the area.
4.12 WILDLIFE
The 6 action alternatives would result in both short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife. Proposed
reclamation plans and mitigation measures would eventually restore wildlife habitat, but not to the same
quality or quantity that would be lost. Therefore a net loss to wildlife may occur without additional
mitigation measures. The magnitude of the impact to wildlife would be a function of the size and
duration of habitat loss; changes in land use, disturbance and noise; and the risk of exposure to toxic
substances.
The net adverse impact to wildlife (following reclamation and mitigation) would be greatest under
Alternatives B and F, and least under Alternative C. Alternative B would have substantial impacts to
wildlife due to permanent loss and conversion of habitat, and the loss of deer snow intercept/thermal
cover. Alternative F would have substantial impacts due to the duration of disturbance, habitat loss and
the risk of toxic impacts (33 years), and the duration of habitat loss (33 years). Alternative C would
have the least impacts due to the short Project duration (6 years), the small footprint, and the reduced
surface disturbance from underground mining.
Impacts to wildlife would continue after operations cease and for some time following revegetation
when early successional cover types (e.g., grass, shrub) prevail. Species preferring early successional
cover types are expected to be among the first colonizers of reclaimed slopes. However, species
requiring or preferring mature forest and associated components (e.g., snags, larger tree size, density)
would be impacted until the structure and function of mature interior forests is realized. The likelihood
of mature forest structure and function would be achieved on the reclaimed mine sites would be reduced
by: a loss of soil productivity on reclaimed lands; the permanent conversion of some forest habitat to
grass, shrub, and open forest (e.g., pit creation, south waste rock slopes); and the proposed tree
stocking levels of the reclamation plans.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-56 SUMMARY June 1995
Most wildlife species would be moderately impacted by most of the action alternatives. All action
alternatives would disturb nesting and foraging habitat of several pairs of northern goshawks. With
respect to bat species, Alternatives B, E, F and G would remove potential roosting habitat by eliminating
the Gold Axe and Double Axe adits. However, reductions in population viability for bat species is not
likely since mine development would not affect any important maternity or winter roosting sites. The
common loon and northern bald eagle may be subject to a large degree of negative impact if an
accidental spill of toxic substances into an area stream occurred. The golden eagle may be subject to a
moderate degree of impact if a spill into an area stream occurred. Alternatives B and E would result in
the greatest long-term loss of deer snow intercept thermal cover (SI/T) which is in limited availability.
Alternatives C and D would have the least effect.
4.13 NOISE
Modeling indicates that noise levels during the operational phase of the Crown Jewel Project would be
below the allowable limits for residential areas set by State of Washington requirements, except for one
possible condition. The modeling indicates that Project activities may slightly exceed existing Chesaw
background noise levels that were measured during the quietest hours of the night during the winter
during temperature inversions. This indicates that the mining activities might be slightly noticeable
outdoors before dawn during the winter if the prevailing winds are from the east; however, it is unlikely
that the mining noise would be noticeable indoors unless Chesaw residents had their windows open at
night during the winter under windy conditions.
Blasting would occur, less than 3 times a day, during daylight hours; however, some residents in
Chesaw and along Myers Creek may hear blasting, which would compare to a sonic boom or thunder.
Other noise levels would normally dissipate quickly with distance from the source and are expected to
be relatively low at areas outside the facility boundary.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) enforces noise standards in mining operations. All
noise impacts would be short-term and similar for all action alternatives. Given the location of the
Project, noise generated directly from the Project would have minor effects on existing uses.
4.14 RECREATION
All Crown Jewel Project action alternatives would have moderate adverse effects to dispersed recreation
activities around Buckhorn Mountain. There would be some restriction of campers, hikers, hunters, and
people interested in the mining history of the area. Mine traffic and activity would reduce the
experience of remoteness.
Effects on recreation resources would be mostly temporary in nature (during the life of the operation)
and would affect primarily dispersed recreational activities within and immediately adjacent to the Crown
Jewel Project site. Short-term impacts, within the Project area, would consist of the closure of several
Forest Service roads and the consequent interruption of north-south access through the area, increased
traffic, fencing of the actual Project area, and noise impacts. Alternatives C and D would have the
fewest acres disturbed and inaccessible to the public, while Alternatives E and G would have the
greatest number of acres disturbed and inaccessible to the public. Alternative F has a 33-year Project
duration which would extend these short-term impacts over a much longer period than the other
alternatives.
There may be short-term impacts to campgrounds or other facilities for the construction period if
construction workers use state or Forest Service campgrounds for housing. The Forest Service would
be responsible for assuring that any non-appropriate recreational use of their campgrounds is not
occurring. Project-related population increases could place increased demands on regional recreational
facilities, although these are expected to be minor except during Project construction, In the long-term,
recreational opportunities would be similar to those currently existing or enhanced due to heritage
resource interpretive activities.
Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page S-57
4.15 SCENIC RESOURCES
Though there are no major impacts to the important viewsheds as rated by the Forest Service Visual
Management System, all of the action alternatives would result in general visual disturbance to the area
from dust, lights, and traffic, as well as construction of the topsoil stockpiles, borrow areas, roads,
support buildings, water supply system, and power line. The power line and the top of the mine pit
would be visible along portions of the Oroville-Toroda Creek Road (County Road 9480). Once Project
features are removed, and reclamation completed, most of the disturbed areas would gradually
revegetate over time, and contrasts in texture and color would be reduced, or eliminated. The final pit
area (Alternatives B, D, E, and G) and any surface subsidence features (Alternative C and D) would
present a long-term irreversible, visual change.
The action alternatives differ primarily in the configuration or presence of the mine pit, the location and
size of waste rock disposal areas, and the tailings disposal area; however, all of the topographic changes
would result in long-term irreversible losses of visual quality.
Alternative C involves underground mining, but would require rock quarries, one of which may be
located near the top of Buckhorn Mountain. The only visible evidence of underground mining from
outside the Project area could possibly be a moisture cloud from the underground operation in the winter
months. Alternative D could also create a moisture cloud in the winter, as well as long-term impacts
from the mine pit.
Alternatives B and E are similar in terms of visual impacts, with the greatest impacts consisting of the
view of the north waste rock disposal area from Canada, the view of the south waste rock disposal area
from Mt. Bonaparte, and the view of the mine pit and south waste rock disposal area from Toroda Creek
and Graphite Mountain.
In the long-term, Alternative F would have the least visual impact, because the pit would be completely
backfilled, the summit of Buckhorn Mountain would be reinstated, and there would be no permanent
waste rock disposal areas. The length of Alternative F (33 years), however, would extend the duration
of the short-term impacts, including views of the north waste rock disposal area and mine pit.
Alternative G would have the least short-term visual impacts because there would be no south waste
rock area and the north waste rock area would be only slightly visible outside the immediate vicinity of
the Crown Jewel Project.
4.16 HERITAGE RESOURCES
No known prehistoric sites exist.
All action alternatives would directly impact historic mining sites around Buckhorn Mountain. Only one
of the historic mining sites, the Gold Axe Camp, has cabins potentially eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and would be irreversibly impacted by every action
alternative. There are 2 potentially NRHP eligible sites along the proposed Crown Jewel Project power
line corridor from Oroville to the Mine site. These sites are the Hee Hee Stone and an historic irrigation
flume. The Hee Hee Stone would be avoided by the power line construction, and the historic irrigation
flume would be spanned by the power line.
The action alternatives could result in some indirect effects to historic properties. Increases in visitation
to the area might occur as a result of the Project and road improvements. Increased human presence
could result in vandalism and other random acts that would harm or destroy adjacent heritage resources.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Effects to the existing transportation network would result from an increase in average daily traffic
(ADT) to the site during construction, operation, and reclamation of the Crown Jewel Project. This
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-58 SUMMARY June 1995
projected increase would come from employee related traffic combined with supply and material
transport. The magnitude and duration of impacts associated with employee or supply traffic would
depend on the action alternative. Table S-12, Traffic Summary By Road, shows the Project-related
traffic and the percent of traffic increase projected for each road.
Construction Phase. All of the alternatives are projected to have similar construction-related traffic (282
ADT), except for Alternative A, which would not have a construction phase. Alternatives C and G route
all traffic (employee and supply) from Oroville to the Project, while Alternatives B, D, E, and F route
supplies through Wauconda to the site. For all action alternatives, there would be some traffic through
Chesaw to service the construction of the Starrem Creek Reservoir. The potential would exist for an
increase in the number of accidents per year, given increased traffic volume.
Operations Phase. The alternatives vary considerably between employees needed and the life span of
the operation. Alternative A has no operations phase, Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F vary from 46 to 59
vehicle trips per day, while Alternative G would have 77. The duration of effect varies from 4 to 8
years, except for Alternative F which extends for 16 years. The potential would exist for an increase in
the number of accidents per year, given operational traffic.
All action alternatives would require shipment of supplies and materials during operation. The type and
amount of supplies and materials needed annually for the Crown Jewel Project are summarized by
alternative on Table S-13, Annual Hazardous Material Transport. Although numerous mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate an accident or spill of this type of material, it is
recognized that the potential for an accident or spill, albeit slight, remains.
4.18 LAND USE/RECLAMATION
None of the action alternatives would cause a major land use or land ownership change within
Okanogan County or the Okanogan National Forest. No decision has been made by the BLM regarding
mineral patent applications by the Proponent.
Disturbance caused by the action alternatives would vary from 440 acres (Alternative C) to 927 acres
(Alternative E). The areas affected by all of the action alternatives would experience short-term effects,
but reclamation would return most of the acreage to pre-mining uses.
Unreclaimed topographic modifications would involve the final mine pit (Alternatives B, D, E, and G) as
well as surface subsidence in the underground mining operations (Alternatives C and D). Land affected
by the open-mine pit and surface subsidence would have long-term post-mining land uses different than
pre-mining land-use conditions.
Implementation of a reclamation plan would reduce any potential for long-term impacts to the
environmental resources of the area. The degree of impact would be a function of both the area
disturbed and revegetation success.
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
All of the action alternatives would have socioeconomic effects; however, statistical measures such as
population, employment, school enrollments, and housing would change by less than 2% for all action
alternatives. Table S-14, Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action Alternatives, and Table S-15,
Anticipated Population Increase, present an overview of the expected effects to the socioeconomic
environment.
Because of its shorter duration, and the likelihood that more workers would not be from the local area.
Alternative C could create a greater need for temporary worker housing through the entire duration of
mine and construction, operation and reclamation. Conversely, Alternative F would create the least
amount of major change in socioeconomic conditions due to the longer duration of mining activity and
lower levels of mining employment.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page S-59
TABLE S-12, TRAFFIC SUMMARY BY ROAD
Alternative A
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative B
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative C
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative D
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative E
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative F
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative G
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
State Highway
20
(ADT 860)
Increase
-
8
13
2
--
8
13
2
8
13
2
8
8
4
--
% Inc
--
0.9
1.5
0.2
-
0.9
1.5
0.2
0.9
1.5
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.5
-
CR 9495
(ADT 172)
Increase
--
8
13
2
--
8
13
2
8
13
2
8
8
4
-
% Inc
-
4.7
7.6
1.2
-
4.7
7.6
1.2
4.7
7.6
1.2
4.7
4.7
2.3
CR 9480
(ADT 1906/288W)1
Increase | % Inc
12w
8e/274w
13e/38w
2e/ 18w
282w
57w
20w
8e/274w
13e/46w
2e/ 18w
8e/274w
13e/38w
2e/ 18w
8e/274w
8e/38w
4e/ 22w
282w
77w
20w
4.2w
4.2e/95.1w
6.8e/13.2w
Lie/ 6.3w
99.0w
19. 8w
6.9w
4.2e/95.1w
6.8e/16.0w
1.1e/ 6.3w
4.2e/95.1 w
6.8e/13.2w
Lie/ 6.3w
4.2e/95.1 w
4.2e/13.2w
2.1e/ 7.6w
97. 9w
26. 7w
6.9w
CR 4895
(ADT 5)
Increase
12
282
51
20
282
57
20
282
59
20
282
51
20
282
46
26
282
77
20
% Inc
240
5640
1020
400
5640
1140
400
5640
1180
400
5640
1020
400
5640
920
520
5640
1540
400
FS 3575120
(ADT <5)
Increase
12
282
51
20
282
57
20
282
59
20
282
51
20
282
46
26
282
77
20
% Inc
> 240
>5640
>1020
> 400
>5640
>1140
> 400
>5640
>1180
> 400
>5640
>1020
> 400
>5640
> 920
> 520
>5640
>1540
> 400
Notes: Traffic numbers represent expected and mitigated conditions.
ADT = average daily traffic.
1. "e" represents the portion of CR 9480 east of the Project, "w" is west of the Project.
TABLE S-13, SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Sodium Cyanide
Ammonium Nitrate
Chemicals/Reagents
Lime/Cement
Fuel
Lead Nitrate
Alternative A
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative B
86
160
105
401
240
9
Alternative C
86
55
105
401
24
9
Alternative D
86
160
105
401
240
9
Alternative E
86
160
105
401
240
9
Aiternative F
43
80
52
200
120
4
Alternative G
0
160
0
0
240
0
Note: Numbers represent annual truck loads during operations.
Many of the socioeconomic effects evaluated are directly related to the number of workers that would
be hired locally versus hires from outside the area. Experience with other comparable mine projects
suggests that the proportion of non-local hires could be greater than indicated by the Proponent;
however, the Proponent proposes active efforts to encourage local hiring for the Crown Jewel Project.
4.20
MINING ECONOMICS
The evaluation of a mining project is a complex and detailed activity. It involves the interaction of
mineral sciences and engineering with finance and economics in the analysis of whether a project is
economically viable to shareholders and investors.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page S-60
SUMMARY
June 1995
A pre-feasibility economic comparison of the alternatives was performed in order to assess general
feasibility and relative economics. Assuming a minimum after-tax rate of return of 1 5%, an alternative
may be considered economically feasible if, for the Total Project and the Primary Partner, a positive Net
Present Value (N.V.) is returned. Based upon the above criterion, Alternatives B, C, D, and E are
potentially feasible projects; while Alternatives F and G, which return 0 or negative returns, are not.
TABLE S-14, SOCIOECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Years of Operation:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Total
Employment (Max):
Construction
Operation
Reclamation (Avg.)
Percent of Local Employment:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Annual Wage Levels:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Capital Expenditures:
Construction
Reclamation
Annual Expenditures:
Mine Operations
Reclamation
Assessed Valuation
Percent of Alternative B
Alternative B
1
8
1
10
250
150
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$41,000,000
0
$8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative C
1
4
1
6
250
225
50
25
40
95
$27,500
39,000
39,000
$77,000,000
0
$12,450,000
$3,000,000
$36,000,000
60
Alternative D
1
6
1
8
250
225
50
30
50
95
$27,500
39,000
39,000
$67,400,000
0
$12,450,000
$3,000,000
$48,000,000
80
Alternative E
1
8
1
10
250
150
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$41,000,000
0
$8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative F
1
16
16
33
250
125
75
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
38,000
$41,000,000
20,200,000
8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative G
1
8
1
10
250
210
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$50,400,000
0
11,620,000
$3,000,000
$31,000,000
52
Source: TerraMatrix Inc., Chapter 2 Alternatives Including The Proposed Action, January 5, 1994. Assessed valuation is
estimated by E.D. Hovee & Company based on the amount of recoverable gold resource of each Alternative when
compared to the Proposed Action (Alternative B).
TABLE S-15, ANTICIPATED POPULATION INCREASE
Mine Phase
Construction Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Operations Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Reclamation Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative
B
180
28
208
73
91
164
7
28
35
Alternative
C
235
28
264
273
133
406
7
28
35
Alternative
D
219
28
247
230
133
363
7
28
35
Alternative
E
180
28
208
73
91
164
7
28
35
Alternative
F
180
28
208
63
77
140
11
42
53
Alternative
G
180
28
208
95
126
222
7
28
35
Note: Any population effect associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the construction, operation and
reclamation phases of mine activity.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
------- |