Dirty Mines? Mine water quality predictions often wrong

Dear readers,
Please bear with us on mining pollution, it ultimately affects the North Shore in a multitude of ways. To name only one: the filthy use of coal in the power generation that provides our electricity.
True


By CHRISTOPHER SMITH Associated Press, December 7, 2006

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Conservationists say water quality predictions prepared by federal land management agencies as part of the permitting process for precious metal mines during the past 25 years were routinely off the mark in concluding the mines would not cause water pollution.

"When we compared the government's predictions with actual water quality reports we found the predictions did not generally agree with reality," said Ann Maest, a water quality geochemist from Boulder, Colo., who co-authored the study released Thursday by the Washington, D.C.-based conservation group Earthworks. "Over three-quarters of the mines we reviewed in detail had pollution exceedances over water quality standards.

"Mining industry officials said they were still reviewing the conservation group's analysis, but questioned \n the inclusion of mines in the study that went bust, were abandoned \n and may not have been built to agreed-upon environmental protection standards."There may be some things in this report that we certainly need to act upon, but it looks to me like a quarter of the mines they decided to look at are abandoned and that may be a little unfair," said Carol Raulston of the National Mining Association in Washington. "There are some mines in their database that are not characteristic of modern mining."

James Kuipers, a Butte, Mont., mining engineer who also authored the conservationists' study, said the findings that water quality protection predictions seldom hold true should prompt regulators to better scrutinize proposals for new mines, including northeast Washington state's Buckhorn gold mine, and the gold and copper Pebble mine in Alaska.

"Mines like the Rosemont copper mine in Arizona and the Atlanta gold mine in Idaho, at least as they are presently being proposed, appear to suffer from many of the same failures as those that were permitted years ago," he said. Kuipers compared the proposed Atlanta mine to the closed Zortman-Landusky mining complex in northern Montana, where taxpayers must foot the bill for treating contaminated water for decades to come.

Atlanta wants to use cyanide to leach gold from the ore left from old mines on a tributary upstream from the Boise River. Environmental groups have warned it could pollute the source of drinking water, irrigation and recreation for the state's most populous river valley.",

"The \n Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the \n Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water \n quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to \n regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, \n relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying \n mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine \n overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine \n in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only \n a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the \n amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more \n samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an \n acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the \n discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, \n cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining \n and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are \n continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to \n prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to \n look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those \n prediction models if the assumptions don\'t match what they are \n seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are \n faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in \n our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks \n mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National \n Mining Association: ",1]
);
//-->
"The Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those prediction models if the assumptions don't match what they are seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National Mining Association:
http://www.nma.org/\n \n http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#\n \n \n http://www.mine-aid.org/\n Groundbreaking research indicates the mine \n permitting process is \n broken.\n \n Dec 7 -- \n New scientific research unveiled \n today finds that faulty water \n quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval \n of mines that create significant water pollution problems at \n more than three quarters of mines studied. \n \n \n The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water \n Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art",1]
);
//-->
http://www.nma.org/

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#


http://www.mine-aid.org/
Groundbreaking research indicates the mine permitting process is broken.

Dec 7 -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems at more than three quarters of mines studied.
The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
, by Jim Kuipers, \n P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \n predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted \n in the United States during the last 25 years. \n A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock \n Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good \n Practice summarizes these reports and \n provides policy recommendations for \n regulators.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nNOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By \ndownloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize \nthem until that date.\n\n Comparison \n of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental \n Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive) \n Predicting \n Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf \n document. Right click to save to your hard drive)",1]
);
//-->
, by Jim Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice summarizes these reports and provides policy recommendations for regulators.





NOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By downloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize them until that date.
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
\n Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper \n summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim \n Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to \n your hard drive.) \n Independent \n reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been \n prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive.) \n Major \n mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in \n the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right \n click to save to your hard drive.) \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nhttp://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS\n \n \n2006 Press Releases \nNew Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep \nMines from Polluting Water",1]
);
//-->

Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Independent reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Major mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right click to save to your hard drive.)






http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS


2006 Press Releases
New Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep Mines from Polluting Water
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine \nPermitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, \nand Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups\nDec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that \nfaulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures \nresult in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution \nproblems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that \nmines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of \nstudied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and \ngroundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, \nand exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by \nthe Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups \nin as many as ten western states affected by mining.\n"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial \ncosts of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are \npermitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where \npredictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process \nis broken and must be fixed." \nThe first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual \nWater Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at \nHardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by \nKuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \npredictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the \nUnited States during the last 25 years. \nThe scientists found that predictions of mining\'s impact on \nclean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They \nalso found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, \nincorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the \ninaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.",1]
);
//-->
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine Permitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, and Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups
Dec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that mines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of studied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and groundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by the Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups in as many as ten western states affected by mining.
"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial costs of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are permitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where predictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process is broken and must be fixed."
The first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
The scientists found that predictions of mining's impact on clean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They also found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, incorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the inaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.
\nAmong the researchers\' findings for the 25 mines examined in \ndepth:\n\n 76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or \n surface water quality standards \n 93 percent of mines that are near \n groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant \n leaching exceeded water quality standards[1] \n 85 percent of mines that are near surface \n water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching \n exceeded water quality standards \n Water quality standards for toxic heavy \n metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 \n percent of mines. \n Mitigation measures predicted to protect \n clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.\n"Regulators and mining companies have a \nresponsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, \nstate-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said \nMaest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines \nto keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable." \n\nThe researchers also found that mines located near surface or \ngroundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or \ncontaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in \nwater pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for \ncontroversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting \nincluding:\n\n Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska \n at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world\'s largest salmon \n runs. \n Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the \n Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal \n water",1]
);
//-->

Among the researchers' findings for the 25 mines examined in depth:
76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or surface water quality standards
93 percent of mines that are near groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards[1]
85 percent of mines that are near surface water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards
Water quality standards for toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 percent of mines.
Mitigation measures predicted to protect clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.
"Regulators and mining companies have a responsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, state-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said Maest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines to keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable."
The researchers also found that mines located near surface or groundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or contaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in water pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for controversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting including:
Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world's largest salmon runs.
Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal water
\n Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest \n Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains \n Wilderness.\n"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, \nthis report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director \nof Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these \nfindings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, \nhealthier economies, and more responsible mining." \nSustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing \ndemand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines \nand mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed \nin 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple \nsince 2002.\nBased on the researchers\' findings, the groups releasing the \nstudies offered the following recommendations:\n\n Better screening of high-risk mines -- \n particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create \n pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching. \n Take a precautionary approach to mine \n permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios. \n Undertake a thorough review of water quality \n predictions at all existing mines. \n Keep the public informed, make risks \n transparent. \n Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine \n proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and \n analyses.\nThe reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at \nfive major conferences, including: U.S. EPA\'s Hardrock 2006 Conference in \nTucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration\'s 2006 Annual \nMeeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in \nFairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006. ",1]
);
//-->

Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, this report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director of Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these findings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, healthier economies, and more responsible mining."
Sustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing demand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines and mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed in 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple since 2002.
Based on the researchers' findings, the groups releasing the studies offered the following recommendations:
Better screening of high-risk mines -- particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching.
Take a precautionary approach to mine permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios.
Undertake a thorough review of water quality predictions at all existing mines.
Keep the public informed, make risks transparent.
Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and analyses.
The reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at five major conferences, including: U.S. EPA's Hardrock 2006 Conference in Tucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration's 2006 Annual Meeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006.
\n\n \n\n\nPredictions vs \nReality reports\n\n Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n Mines \n Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art \n \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white \n paper.\n\nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite \n808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n",1]
);
//-->


Predictions vs Reality reports
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white paper.
Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org

.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfmn \nCuster National Forest, \nMT\n\nRancher Not Informed about \nMineral Leasing\nBy Jeanie \nAlderson\nMy father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a \ncow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this \npart of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay \ntaxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. \nWhile we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the \nfederal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land \nthat is very close to our homes.\nI knew that the federal government owned \nminerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal \nmineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) \nofficial in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been \nleased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually \nreceived from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals \nhad leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not \ndistinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all \nindications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane \ndevelopment. \nBLM never informed me they were leasing \nminerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease \nstipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any \ninformation about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in \nregard to the development of federal minerals.",1]
);
//-->
http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfm

Custer National Forest, MT
Rancher Not Informed about Mineral Leasing
By Jeanie Alderson
My father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a cow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this part of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay taxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. While we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the federal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land that is very close to our homes.
I knew that the federal government owned minerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal mineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been leased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually received from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals had leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not distinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all indications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane development.
BLM never informed me they were leasing minerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease stipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any information about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in regard to the development of federal minerals.
\nHad we been able to be involved in the leasing \nprocess we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, \nand how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge \nof the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, \nnative plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided \ninformation about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. \nThis information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, \nultimately more effective, manner.\nIn the present situation, we had no input into \na process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives \nforever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what \nhappens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take \nprecedence over surface rights.\nReprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource \nCouncils\n\n \nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 \nWashington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n \n \n\n\n",0]
);
//-->

Had we been able to be involved in the leasing process we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, and how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge of the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, native plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided information about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. This information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, ultimately more effective, manner.
In the present situation, we had no input into a process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives forever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what happens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take precedence over surface rights.
Reprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872