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 MacHardy, Kuipers and Associates, Butte, MT Greg Lawson, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO

Kuipers & Associates2 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 –

Kuipers & Associates3 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 & Associates4 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 & Associates5 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, 100,000,000 #’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 & Associates6 Mine Information Statistical Evaluation

Kuipers & Associates7 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 & Associates8 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 & Associates9 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 reviewed64 mines EA’s reviewed6 mines Total70 mines

Kuipers & Associates10 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 & Associates11 Climate (Modified Koppen System) Climate (Modified Koppen System)

Kuipers & Associates12 Surface Water Hydrology

Kuipers & Associates13 Groundwater Hydrology

Kuipers & Associates14 Acid Drainage Potential

Kuipers & Associates15 Contaminant Leaching Potential

Kuipers & Associates16 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 & Associates17 Case Study Mines NameState Greens CreekAK PogoAK BagdadAZ RayAZ SaffordAZ JamestownCA McLaughlinCA Royal Mountain KingCA Grouse CreekID Thompson CreekID Beal MountainMT Black PineMT NameState Golden SunlightMT Mineral HillMT StillwaterMT Zortman and LanduskyMT Florida CanyonNV Jerritt CanyonNV Lone TreeNV RochesterNV Round MountainNV Ruby HillNV Twin CreeksNV FlambeauWI

Kuipers & Associates18 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 & Associates19Findings 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 & Associates20Findings 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 & Associates21Findings 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 & Associates22Findings 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 & Associates23Findings 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 & Associates24 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 & Associates25 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 & Associates26 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