WMAN Conference 2005

WMAN Conference 2005WMAN 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, MTAnn Maest, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO

Kimberley MacHardy, Kuipers and Associates, Butte, MTGreg Lawson, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO

Kuipers & AssociatesKuipers & Associates 22

Project BackgroundProject 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


Project TasksProject 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


Project DatabaseProject 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


Major Mines IdentificationMajor 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, 100,000,000 #’s copper, or equivalent in other metal

– In operation 1975 to present

• Sources– Kuipers, Randol, USGS, Infomine

• 182 major mines identified in U.S.


Mine Information Statistical EvaluationMine Information Statistical Evaluation

0

1

2

3

4

5

Figure XXXX ALASKA MAJOR MINES BY COMMODITY

Number 5 1 2 0 0 0 2 0

% 62.5% 12.5% 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0%

Primary Gold

Primary Silver

Gold and

CopperCopper

and Moly

Lead and Zinc

Platinum Group

Figure XXXX ALASKA MAJOR MINES BY OPERATION (MINING METHOD)

Underground, 4, 49%Open Pit, 3, 38%

Underground + Open Pit, 1, 13%

FIGURE XXXX ALASKA MAJOR MINES BY OPERATION (PROCESS) TYPE

Flotation and Gravity, 4, 57%

Dump Leach (SX/EW), 0, 0%

Vat Leach, 2, 29%Heap Leach, 1, 14%

Heap Leach and Vat Leach, 0,

0%

FIGURE XXXX ALASKA MAJOR MINES BY CURRENT STATUS

62.5%

0.0%

12.5% 12.5% 12.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Current Status

% o

f T

ota

l M

ines

Status 62.5% 0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 12.5%

Operating ClosedIn

ConstructionPermitting Withdraw n


NEPA Mines IdentificationNEPA Mines IdentificationNEPA RequirementsNEPA 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


NEPA MinesNEPA 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%)


NEPA Documents CollectionNEPA 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


NEPA/EIS NEPA/EIS Water Quality Predictions InformationWater 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


% of total mines reviewed

Dry/Arid Low and Middle

Latitude Deserts20%

Dry/Semi-Arid Middle Latitude

Climates36%

Humid Tropical4%

Marine West Coast

4%

Boreal Forest29%

Continental3%

Sub Arctic4%

ClimateClimate(Modified Koppen System)(Modified Koppen System)


Surface Water HydrologySurface Water Hydrology


No information7%

Intermittent/ ephemeral

streams on site - perennial

streams >1 mile away26%

Intermittent/ ephemeral

streams on site - perennial

streams <1 mile away23%

Perennial streams on site

44%


Groundwater HydrologyGroundwater Hydrology


No information12%

Depth to groundwater

>200 feet16%

Depth to groundwater <200 but >50

feet13%

Depth to groundwater 0

to 50 ft or springs on site w ith no other

info59%


Acid Drainage PotentialAcid Drainage Potential


No information available

9%

Low acid drainage potential

59%

Moderate acid drainage potential

26%

High acid drainage potential

6%


Contaminant Leaching PotentialContaminant Leaching Potential


No information available

22%

Low contaminant leaching potential (leachate does not

exceed water quality standards)

32%

Moderate potential for elevated contaminant

concentrations (Leachate exceeds

water quality standards by 1-10

times.)30%

High potential for elevated

contaminant concentrations

(Leachate exceeds water quality

standards by over 10 times.)

16%


Case Study PrioritiesCase 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


Case Study MinesCase Study MinesName State

Greens Creek AK

Pogo AK

Bagdad AZ

Ray AZ

Safford AZ

Jamestown CA

McLaughlin CA

Royal Mountain King CA

Grouse Creek ID

Thompson Creek ID

Beal Mountain MT

Black Pine MT

Name State

Golden Sunlight MT

Mineral Hill MT

Stillwater MT

Zortman and Landusky MT

Florida Canyon NV

Jerritt Canyon NV

Lone Tree NV

Rochester NV

Round Mountain NV

Ruby Hill NV

Twin Creeks NV

Flambeau WI


Other Mines with Some Operational Other Mines with Some Operational WQ InformationWQ Information

• American Girl, CA

• Castle Mountain, CA

• Mesquite, CA

• Cortez Pipeline, NV

• Gold Quarry, NV

• 29 mines total with operational WQ info


FindingsFindings

• 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


FindingsFindings

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


FindingsFindings

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)


FindingsFindings

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


FindingsFindings

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.


Increased Risk Factors forIncreased Risk Factors forWater Quality ImpactsWater 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


Increased Risk Factors for Increased Risk Factors for Water Quality ImpactsWater 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


Uses by Activists of Both StudiesUses 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