WMAN Conference 2005 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL

WMAN Conference 2005 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY In Environmental Impact Statements for major hardrock mines in the U. S. James Kuipers, Kuipers and Associates, Butte, MT Ann Maest, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO Kimberley Mac. Hardy, Kuipers and Associates, Butte, MT Greg Lawson, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO

Project Background • Performed by Kuipers and Associates and Buka Environmental • Study of this type/magnitude never performed before • Project funded by Earthworks/MPC with grant from Wilburforce Foundation • 24 -month data collection and analysis effort • Preliminary results presented at SME with final results available October 2005 – www. kuipersassoc. com Kuipers & Associates 2

Project Tasks • • Define and identify “major” hardrock mines in the U. S. Identify NEPA eligibility of major hardrock mines Identify and gather NEPA documentation for major mines Identify and compile water quality predictions information from NEPA documents • Identify other water quality predictions information • Conduct case studies analysis of NEPA process, predictions results, and actual water quality history • Analyze NEPA predictions and water quality information on a comparative basis and in subgroups Kuipers & Associates 3

Project Database • • • Location Ownership Commodity Operation Type Operation Status Disturbance and Financial Assurance NEPA Documentation Record of NEPA document requests and retention NPDES Information Data provided in Excel database form and statistically evaluated in appendices to report Kuipers & Associates 4

Major Mines Identification • Major Mines Criteria – disturbance area of over 100 acres, and – financial assurance amount of over $250, 000, or – having a production history (1975 to current) of greater than 100, 000 oz’s Au, 100, 000 #’s copper, or equivalent in other metal – In operation 1975 to present • Sources – Kuipers, Randol, USGS, Infomine • 182 major mines identified in U. S. Kuipers & Associates 5

Mine Information Statistical Evaluation Kuipers & Associates 6

NEPA Mines Identification NEPA Requirements • • • Location on Forest Service lands Location on Bureau of Land Management lands Requirement for NPDES permit from EPA Requirement for COE 404 wetlands permit Location on BIA-administered Indian Lands State mandated NEPA equivalent process Kuipers & Associates 7

NEPA Mines • 136 current era NEPA eligible major hardrock mines # (% of total) – BLM lands 93 (68%) – Forest Service lands 35 (26%) – BLM and Forest Service lands 9 (7%) – COE 404 Wetlands Permits 5 (4%) – EPA issued NPDES permits 3 (2%) – BIA administered Indian Lands 2 (2%) – States requiring NEPA 33 (24%) • CA, MT, WA, WI – NEPA for both federal and state 22 (16%) Kuipers & Associates 8

NEPA Documents Collection • Goal: to obtain and review statistically significant total of documents for the 136 current era NEPA-eligible hardrock mines identified • EIS’s reviewed 64 mines • EA’s reviewed 6 mines • Total 70 mines Kuipers & Associates 9

NEPA/EIS Water Quality Predictions Information • Classifications Established/ Reviews for: – – – – Mineralization/Ore Associations Climate Hydrology Geochemical Characterization Predictive Models Used Acid Drainage and Contaminant Leaching Potential Groundwater, Surface Water and Pit Water Impact Potential – Mitigations – Predicted Water Quality Impacts – Discharge Information Kuipers & Associates 10

Climate (Modified Koppen System) Kuipers & Associates 11

Surface Water Hydrology Kuipers & Associates 12

Groundwater Hydrology Kuipers & Associates 13

Acid Drainage Potential Kuipers & Associates 14

Contaminant Leaching Potential Kuipers & Associates 15

Case Study Priorities • Long histories of NEPA documentation • Information on pre-mining water quality • Representative of a variety of locations; commodities; different proximities to water resources; different characterization and modeling efforts; different potentials to generate acid and leach contaminants Kuipers & Associates 16

Case Study Mines Name State Greens Creek AK Golden Sunlight MT Pogo AK Mineral Hill MT Bagdad AZ Stillwater MT Ray AZ Zortman and Landusky MT Safford AZ Florida Canyon NV Jamestown CA Jerritt Canyon NV Mc. Laughlin CA Lone Tree NV Royal Mountain King CA Rochester NV Grouse Creek ID Round Mountain NV Thompson Creek ID Ruby Hill NV Beal Mountain MT Twin Creeks NV Black Pine MT Flambeau WI Kuipers & Associates 17

Other Mines with Some Operational WQ Information • • • American Girl, CA Castle Mountain, CA Mesquite, CA Cortez Pipeline, NV Gold Quarry, NV • 29 mines total with operational WQ info Kuipers & Associates 18

Findings • This study identifies the primary modes by which the predictions have failed in terms of actual water quality impacts. – inadequate geochemical characterization – lack of effective mitigation – mitigation does not perform – other causes Kuipers & Associates 19

Findings Failure Mode • Inadequate Geochemical Characterization – Failure to recognize acid drainage or other contaminant potential – Root Causes • • Failure to collect representative samples Failure to conduct proper tests Interpretation failure Modeling failure Kuipers & Associates 20

Findings Failure Mode • Lack of Effective Mitigation – unlined tailings impoundment, springs on site not identified, contaminant not identified – most commonly caused by inadequate geochemical or hydrological information – assumption of low potential for impacts results in application of inferior mitigation approach (CA) Kuipers & Associates 21

Findings Failure Mode • Mitigation Does Not Perform – Liner leak, tailings impoundment rupture, pond or pipeline spill, storm event – May be due to one or more variables • • Performance Standard Engineering Design Installation Operation Kuipers & Associates 22

Findings Failure Mode • Other Failure Modes – inadequate baseline water quality information • Recommend minimum 2 years data – hydrological characterization failures • accurate identification or existence of shallow groundwater (springs or perched water) • failure to predict greater quantities of water as mining expands • failure to recognize groundwater/surface water flow paths. Kuipers & Associates 23

Increased Risk Factors for Water Quality Impacts • Primary Risk Factors Identified: – Geology and mineralization – Proximity to water resources and climate – Acid generation potential – Contaminant leaching potential. • Significant discrepancies exist between identified mineralization and acid drainage potential Kuipers & Associates 24

Increased Risk Factors for Water Quality Impacts • Delayed impacts to groundwater at mine sites are being ignored in most NEPA evaluations. • All mines reviewed in detail that had shallow depth to groundwater and moderate/high potential for groundwater quality impacts had groundwater quality impacts • All but one mine reviewed in detail that were close to surface water and had moderate/high AGP had some impact to surface water Kuipers & Associates 25

Uses by Activists of Both Studies • EIS reviews or challenges of new and expanding mines – Characterization methods – Modeling methods – Mitigation methods – Water quality failures/successes of similar mines – Red light/green light – inherent factors Kuipers & Associates 26