|
 |
|
Mining Strategy
**DRAFT REGIONAL MINING STRATEGY**
EPA Region 10
November 20, 1998
BACKGROUND
Mining has played a significant role in the development of this country. The industry has, and continues to be, an important contributor to Regional economies in the Northwest and Alaska. As hardrock mining continues to expand in Region 10 EPA must find ways to work more effectively with other mining stakeholders, including industry, to promote environmental protection goals. This strategy provides a framework for that effort.
As an industrial sector, mining affects every major EPA program. Tailings and waste rock disposal, wastewater discharges, air emissions, storage of toxic reagents and even disposal of PCB's can potentially affect surface and ground water quality, drinking water supplies and air quality. Mining can also cause losses of aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
From a federal regulatory perspective, mining projects pose unique challenges. They are technically complex and there is no single environmental law that specifically addresses all mining impacts. Instead, mining projects are addressed through a fragmented set of federal authorities (administered by a number of federal agencies), none of which were developed with the specific intent of regulating mining. While mining law reform has recently been on the Congressional agenda, revisions to the 1872 Mining Law have been focused primarily on updating "equity" issues rather than environmental concerns. Furthermore, although Superfund has been utilized to address environmental concerns at a number of mining sites, Congress has basically exempted large volume low toxicity mine waste from regulation under Subtitle C of the federal solid waste law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For a variety of reasons, EPA has declined promulgating solid waste regulations for mining under RCRA subtitle D. This means that very complex solid waste issues often must be handled either through other federal authorities which were not developed to deal with solid waste (e.g., the Clean Water Act) or under authorities of state or local government.
States, Tribes, and local government have often been leaders in mining regulation. While no federal legislation specifically addressing the environmental impacts of non-coal mining exists, many States have passed their own statutory programs. In addition, all States have general environmental statutes that provide coverage to mining operations. Many States have been delegated authority to implement federal statutes such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act(CWA). The vital role of States and Tribes in mining regulation cannot be overstated; it is imperative that EPA understand these programs in order to improve its own program implementation.
This complex regulatory landscape combined with the recognition by EPA Headquarters that mining projects have in some cases caused serious environmental degradation has led to development of a National Hardrock Mining Framework (NMF). The NMF (issued September 1997) describes the environmental protection challenges mining projects can present and emphasizes problem solving by working with other stakeholders in an open, cooperative manner whenever possible. The NMF discusses the various regulatory and non-regulatory tools in the EPA "toolkit" for addressing these problems. It also recognizes the role of other federal agencies, Tribes, States, local government, and industry in promoting environmentally sound mine site management.
One expectation of the NMF is that EPA Regions with significant mining activity will tailor Framework recommendations to their own regional issues and priorities. In 1995 a Regional Mining Workgroup (RMW) was established in Region 10, co-chaired by the Regional Mining Coordinator and the Office of Water Mining Specialist. A Core Team of the RMW has developed this draft Regional Mining Strategy that will help set Region 10 priorities with respect to mining issues over the next several years.
MINING IN REGION 10
Mining activity in Region 10 is extensive. This is reflected in the fact that no less than 85 Region 10 employees are involved with mining projects in some capacity. They work in many different EPA programs, often on the same projects, applying different tools and expertise to achieve environmental protection goals. Following is a brief summary of mining activities in the Region.
Alaska
Alaska is the fifth largest gold producing state in the nation. Now that the Fort Knox project near Fairbanks has begun production, the state's gold production will likely double. The Alaska mining industry recorded record growth in 1997. Exploration, development and production rose to a value of $1.16 billion, an increase of 13% over the previous year. Exploration investment of $57.8 million represented a jump of 30% from 1996. Several major new mines can be expected to enter the permitting phase over the next couple of years, adding to the considerable EPA workload in Alaska.
Currently operating mines include over 400 placer operations as well as Red Dog, a world class lead/zinc mine, Greens Creek (silver and zinc), and Usibelli coal. Responding to permitting and compliance issues associated with these facilities, and those that will come on line in the next decade, will require a significant resource commitment by EPA since the Agency retains NPDES permitting responsibilities in Alaska.
According to available estimates there are over 4,000 abandoned and inactive mines in the state, covering nearly 28,000 acres. Inventory and prioritization with respect to environmental concerns are ongoing at several levels of government.
Idaho
Idaho produced a record 300,023 ounces of gold in 1995, more than double Alaska's production that same year. Higher silver prices have led to increased exploration activity, especially in the Coeur d'Alene district. Although lower gold prices in 1998 slowed down the development of new projects and several currently operating gold mines are approaching the end of production, exploration activities continue at a number of properties. A large garnet mine in northern Idaho (Garnet Creek) is also entering the NEPA and permitting phase.
There are numerous mines currently operating in Idaho, over a dozen of which are "major" NPDES dischargers. Many will require new, or revised permits, over the next several years. EPA is working with the Grouse Creek, Thompson Creek and Kinross Delamar/Stone Cabin mines on NPDES permitting and compliance issues. The Beartrack mine began full scale operations in 1995.
According to the USDA Forest Service, there are over 5,000 inactive mines in Idaho covering over 27,500 acres. Two inactive mines are currently Superfund sites (Bunker Hill and Blackbird). Several others, while not on the National Priorities List, are being addressed under Superfund authorities. Inventory and prioritization are ongoing.
Oregon
Oregon currently has the least mining activity of the four Region 10 states. Significant metal deposits include the Grassy Mountain gold deposit in southeastern Oregon and the Bornite copper deposit northeast of Salem. Currently there is no ongoing permitting activity at either site, although an EIS has been prepared for Bornite. No mining is anticipated at these two site is the near future. Kinross and the state of Oregon are currently in litigation regarding the Bornite project. A Supplemental Draft EIS has recently been completed for the Nicore project in Josephine County, Oregon.
Gravel/aggregate extraction from rivers, floodplains, and upland sites is the largest type of mining in the state. Demand for aggregate has outstripped production due to the state's strong economy and strict land use laws. Gravel mining can have serious effects on salmon/fish habitat. Gold mining is currently limited to several placer mines in Baker, Grant, Josephine and Lane counties.
There are an estimated 3,500 inactive and abandoned sites in Oregon covering over 9,000 acres. The White King/Lucky Lass uranium mine, an Oregon Department of Energy facility, is an active Superfund site near Lakeview. EPA is currently conducting an inactive mine inventory and assessment in the Granite Creek watershed in the NE portion of the State.
Washington
Washington produced 107,000 ounces of gold in 1995, about one third of Idaho's production. Nearly all of this was produced from Echo Bay's Kettle River Lamefoot mine near Republic, the only major gold mine operating in Washington. The Crown Jewel Gold Mine project in Okanogan County is the only large new mine currently proposed. It is in the EIS and permitting phase. Exploration work continues in the Wenatchee gold belt, in the Wind River deposit (Skamania County) and in areas adjacent to the Pend Oreille Mine near Metaline Falls.
There is no current estimate available for inactive and abandoned mines in Washington. The Cannon Mine in Wenatchee closed in 1994 and Hecla Mining's Republic Unit closed in early 1995. Closure of the Sherwood Mine has been cited as an example of a successful reclamation effort. They are now in the reclamation phase. In the N.E. portion of the state the Midnite Mine and Dawn Mill are in the early stages of reclamation planning. The Holden Mine near Lake Chelan is an abandoned copper mine that is one of the state's and USFS' top priority Superfund cleanup sites.
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
In recognition of the cross-media nature of mining activities, and given the lack of any overarching federal law that addresses the environmental impacts of mining activities, Region 10 staff involved with mining formed a Regional Mining Workgroup (RMW) in 1994. The main purpose was to create a sector-based approach that would promote better coordination among different media programs dealing with the same or similar mining issues. In 1995, Region 10 management selected a Regional Mining Coordinator (Nick Ceto) and an Office of Water Mining Specialist (Bill Riley) who worked with the RMW to form a Regional Mining 'Core' Team. This team includes a representative from each major EPA program that deals with mining.
Early on the Core Team began development of a Regional Mining Strategy. The overall goal of the Strategy is to determine where and how to invest the Region's limited resources that are available to address mining issues so as to obtain the highest possible return in terms of environmental protection and restoration.
The Core Team met regularly for several months to develop a draft Regional Mining Strategy using the following four step process:
Step 1: MINING PROFILE - identify information needed to understand problems and issues with mining and set priorities for action.
The Core Team, along with other members of the RMW, and with assistance from a summer intern, developed a Regional Mining Profile to provide the "big picture" regarding mining activity in Region 10. The Profile consists of fact sheets for the major proposed, operating and inactive mining facilities in each state. Staff supplemented this with general information on mining that describes trends in the industry for each state. These will be updated annually.
Staff also compiled a "who's who" directory of people from various state and federal agencies involved with managing mining activities. This includes an internal 'directory' of EPA staff currently working as part of discrete teams on the many mining projects in our Region. Lastly, Nick Ceto and Bill Riley met with officials in each state to learn more about each state's authorities and capabilities to deal with current and future mining issues. The Profile includes a compendium of selected state regulations that identify State authorities and the nature of their specific mining programs.
Step 2: TOOL SHARPENING - identify deficiencies in the policy area regarding tools/authorities for directing action.
The Core Team spent a considerable amount of time reviewing all of the 'tools' in the EPA mining toolkit. Team members identified tools that are working well, those that need fine tuning (or don't work at all) and areas where we need further policy development to allow us to use the tool(s) more effectively. The toolkit concept is also a fundamental element of the National Hardrock Mining Framework. Tool analysis focused on EPA responsibilities, however Region 10 recognizes that Agency programs must be considered in the context of the critically important role played by other State, Federal, tribal and local environmental agencies.
Step 3: RESOURCE FOCUSING/PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION - identify, prioritize and implement actions that will address/resolve problems identified to date.
Based on the information gathered in steps one and two, as well as the collective experience and knowledge of the Core Team, Region 10 staff developed a set of "strategic principles" and associated tasks to put those principles into action. These are presented in the following sections. They include elements of the Region 10 Office of Water Mining Plan which was developed earlier in the year by the Office of Water Mining Team.
Step 4: MONITORING - establish tracking/monitoring systems to determine whether the actions we have implemented are achieving desired results.
A fundamental principle of any strategy should be a feedback system to assess whether the strategy is working. The Core Team agreed that every task should have an associated measure of success so that continual progress can be made in an iterative, adaptive manner (see Strategic Principle #10)
STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES
In order to design and implement an effective program to fulfill agency responsibilities in managing the environmental concerns posed by mine sites in Region 10, ten Strategic Principals were identified to guide program improvements.
1) UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF MINING - Mining has a significant impact on the environment in Region 10. Impacts typically include large areas of land disturbance, loss of habitat, changes in water quality and quantity, and a variety of secondary and tertiary impacts. It is essential to clearly understand these impacts to develop an effective EPA Region 10 Mining Strategy and to deal with environmental concerns at individual sites where EPA has a regulatory responsibility.
2) EARLY INVOLVEMENT in new mining operations is critical - Region 10 needs to be actively involved in the earliest stages of mine site evaluation and planning. As our understanding of the impacts of mining improves it will be critical to apply these lessons learned to new site development. A pro-active approach to problem identification and problem solving is far preferable to a reactive mode. Predictive tools should be improved, and widely applied, to maximize the value of early involvement.
3) DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PARTNERSHIPS with other agencies, states, and industry - EPA needs to be an effective partner with other stakeholders to maximize our contribution to overall improvements in addressing environmental issues in the mining sector. States, tribes, and other federal agencies often provide a leadership role in mine site management. By sharing our experience and expertise, and learning from the experience of others, we will be able to leverage our limited resources to achieve greater benefits. Effective, well targeted outreach is a necessity.
4) FOCUS EFFORTS ON PRIORITY SITES/WATERSHEDS - EPA has limited resources to devote to mining. Consequently, resources must be devoted to the highest priority problems. This is particularly important in dealing with inactive and abandoned mines.
5) USE EXISTING TOOLS MORE EFFECTIVELY - There are many tools available to address the environmental consequences of mining. EPA, states, other federal agencies, local government, and tribes all have programs, both regulatory and non-regulatory, that apply to mine sites. A primary element of this strategy is to understand the tools available to EPA and others to address mining, and to use them more effectively.
6) MAINTAIN/ENHANCE IN-HOUSE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE - Mine site environmental issues are very complex. Many disciplines are called upon to fully evaluate potential mine site impacts. Experience has taught us that it is imperative that EPA have competent in-house staff to evaluate mining projects. This technical capability is essential to EPA program delivery and increases our credibility with State and federal partners, and the regulated community. By sharing our expertise we can build the capacity of our partners. We can also enhance our own expertise by working more closely with the regulated community, and other mining stakeholders, to solve problems of mutual interest.
7) MAINTAIN A PRIMARY POINT OF CONTACT ON MINING ISSUES - Creation of the Regional Mining Coordinator and the Office of Water Mining Specialist positions has been instrumental to the progress made in working with mines in the Region over the past year. It is also important to maintain a primary contact for the States of Alaska and Idaho, the most active mining states in the Region. These are also states where EPA continues to implement the NPDES program. State contacts are crucial to early and effective EPA involvement in site scoping activities.
8) UTILIZE A TEAM APPROACH TO SITE MANAGEMENT - A multi- disciplinary team is the most effective way to manage both the Regional Mining Program, and EPA involvement at individual sites.
9) PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS - Improvements are needed in the analytical tools used to predict and mitigate mine impacts. A better understanding of the nature of both existing and future impacts will assure the best possible solutions. Promoting innovative, cost effective technologies for mine site management is another critical priority.
10) EVALUATE OUR PROGRESS AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS - The Mining Team is committed to continued improvements in program delivery. Evaluating our effectiveness in contributing to achievement of environmental goals will assist in determining needed refinements.
STRATEGIC ACTIONS
The following action items are presented according to the strategic principle they are designed to promote:
1. Understanding the Environmental Impacts of Mining
a. Use a GIS-based system to overlay mining sites/districts with impaired waterbodies to identify potential mine related impairments.
b. Continue investigations of alternative waste management techniques, such as dry and submarine tailings disposal.
c. Work with states/tribes and other partners to identify mine site impacts.
2. Early Involvement
a. Continue active participation in the Idaho Joint Review Process.
b. Assign teams to all major new mine projects where EPA has regulatory responsibilities to improve the effectiveness of EPA participation.
c. Emphasize pollution prevention by comprehensively addressing environmental issues early in the EIS and permitting process. This includes completing an EIS Scoping Letter for Mine sites and developing mining specific NPDES permit application requirements (to address hydrologic modeling, treatability studies, and acid rock drainage concerns).
3. Developing Effective Partnerships
a. Host a new/proposed mine permitting workshop for Region 10 states and federal agencies.
b. Distribute a list of mining expertise/experience to Regional partners.
c. Develop and distribute a Region 10 Mining Newsletter as a cooperative effort with partners, including industry.
d. Host an EPA/Industry forum where mining executives and EPA program managers can meet to discuss the future of mining in Region 10 and identify areas of common interest.
e. Evaluate options for recognizing environmentally sound mining practices in Region 10; include Northwest Mining Associaton (NWMA) in this effort.
f. Continue funding of, and participation in, the Tri- State agreement, a cooperative effort with Washington, Idaho, and Oregon to share information and expertise on mining issues.
g. Provide technical assistance to state and federal agencies in complex technical areas, such as hydrology, waste characterization, and water quality modeling.
h. Continue efforts to understand each state's mining program and explore ways to complement rather than duplicate state efforts.
4. Focus Efforts on Priority Sites/Watersheds
a. Host a Regional meeting on inactive and abandoned mine sites to discuss inventories and priority setting.
b. Continue to use the Core Mining Team to set priorities for evaluating newly proposed mining projects.
5. Use Existing Resources More Effectively
a. Conduct in house cross-program training on mining Atools@.
b. Implement innovative Apilots@ for existing authorities (e.g., use of NPDES stormwater permits at inactive mines).
c. Provide negotiation training to mining team members.
d. Develop a Multi-Media inspection checklist for distribution to industry to assist mines in achieving compliance goals.
e. Work with HQ and other Regions to resolve implementation issues presented by the National Toxics Rule.
f. Through the Eastside Forest Management Plan process, EPA should help to develop standards for mining on eastside forests that will provide adequate protection for important aquatic and riparian resources.
g. Work with mining stakeholders to understand technical and administrative barriers to development of centralized mine waste repositories in areas of historic mining and propose options for overcoming those obstacles.
6. Maintain/Enhance In-House Technical Expertise
a. Attend mining conferences, present papers on mining and the environment.
b. Fund training for Region 10 staff on mine site issues.
c. Host Abrownbags@ on mining issues; include external partners.
d. Maintain a mining library within the Regional Office.
e. Continue participation in National workgroups.
7. Maintain a Primary Point of Contact for Mining Issues
a. Continue to support Regional Mining Coordinator and Office of Water Mining Specialist positions (these positions act as primary contacts for Washington and Oregon).
b. Continue to support Dave Tomten as IOO mining contact, and formalize the Regional commitment to this position.
c. Establish an AOO, and perhaps SE Alaska, mining contact.
8. Utilize a Team Approach to Site Management
a. A cross-program team will be designated for each priority site. The Core Team will determine Regional priorities.
b. Continue to utilize the Core Mining Team and Regional Mining Workgroup to consult on site specific issues.
9. Promote Scientific and Technological Improvements
a. Develop siting guidelines and information requirements for evaluating proposed sites.
b. Fund the Coeur d'Alene Basin innovative technology demonstration project.
c. Work with the NWMA to identify innovative approaches to mine site management and publicly recognize the facility operators.
d. Encourage EPA technical experts to present papers/poster sessions at appropriate conferences and workshops.
10. Evaluate Our Progress and Make Improvements
a. Incorporate specific measures of success for each action item in the Regional Mining Workplan when developed (it will be based on this strategy).
b. Conduct a qualitative evaluation of our mine project reviews.
c. Evaluate progress in addressing inactive and abandoned mines in priority watersheds annually.
d. Provide an annual progress report on implementing the Regional Mining Strategy.
e. Seek feedback from our partners.
STATE-BY-STATE PRIORITIES
While the action items displayed above are pertinent to all our states, there are certain priorities that warrant an emphasis on a state-by-state basis.
Alaska
The extensive exploration work underway is likely to create an even larger EIS and permitting workload in the near future. Given the numerous on-going EIS, permitting and compliance issues that are already overtaxing staff capabilities, this new workload suggests that Alaska be given top priority for building partnerships and providing up-front assistance in the mine planning and evaluation process. The following strategic actions would help prepare Region 10 for the increased mining workload:
a. Assign a full-time mining specialist to the Alaska Operations Office to serve as a front-line point of contact.
b. Develop an interagency team, composed of key contacts from other federal and state agencies, that would help coordinate Alaska mining issues (particularly new mine NEPA and permitting) in a fashion similar to the Idaho Joint Review Process.
c. Seek to invest EPA research or AC&C funds in Alaska-specific mining issues (e.g., tailings disposal in steep, wet climates or in permafrost areas; reclamation of placer mines).
With respect to inactive and abandoned mines (IAMs), a meeting was held with the USFS, Alaska DOL, NPS, USGS, BLM, and the Alaska Miners Association on November 5, 1996 to discuss IAM inventories and begin developing a strategy for future work. EPA will support this effort as an integral part of the implementation of the Regional strategy in Alaska.
Idaho
The state of Idaho has recently developed the Idaho Joint Review Process (JRP) which promises to be an effective means for interagency communication and coordination on mining. To make the most of this opportunity the following actions are recommended.
a. Maintain a full-time mining specialist in the Idaho Operations Office to serve as a front-line point of contact.
b. Through the JRP, determine what EPA resources are most critical to properly evaluate mining projects (proposed, existing and inactive).
IAMs will continue to be a priority in Idaho. EPA will continue to work with state and federal agencies to identify priority sites and work with our partners to implement cost- effective cleanups.
Oregon
Given the focus on gravel mining and salmon recovery issues the following action is recommended.
a. Continue to work with the Oregon Division of Geology and Mineral Industries through the Tri- State Agreement to develop BMP's for aggregate mining that could benefit salmon recovery efforts.
Oregon does not have a comprehensive inventory of IAM sites, although a number of agencies have done some limited site assessment. EPA will work with the State and other federal agencies to identify priority IAM sites and provide appropriate support for cleanup initiatives. For example, EPA is currently helping to identify potential IAMs requiring cleanup in the Granite Creek watershed in NE Oregon, as well as providing technical support to the USFS for specific IAM projects.
Washington
The Crown Jewel proposal in Okanogan County continues to be a controversial project. EPA should continue to support evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the project and to work cooperatively with the USFS, Ecology and other entities through the permitting phase.
Currently the State of Washington considers the Holden Mine Site near Lake Chelan to be the highest priority IAM. EPA is providing technical support to the USFS in evaluating cleanup options for this site. Region 10 will continue to provide support for priority IAMs in Washington.
Canada
The boom in gold mining affects our neighbors to the north as well. Unfortunately, a number of Canadian mining operations could have potentially significant impacts on cross-boundary waters, most of them affecting southeast Alaska (e.g., Tulsequah Chief). There is also the potential for American mines (e.g., the Crown Jewel project) to affect Canadian waters. Therefore the following action is recommended.
a. EPA should maintain a regular dialogue with Canadian officials, as well as state officials in Alaska and Washington, to keep abreast of new mining proposals and to assure that the potential impacts to cross-boundary waters are properly addressed and mitigated.
CONCLUSION
The mining industry in the NW and Alaska devotes considerable resources to identifying and managing environmental concerns as an integral component of mine site development and operation. Clearly mining practices have improved considerably in the past decade. Nonetheless, modern mines can still pose potential environmental threats in spite of improved practices to mitigate environmental concerns. Ongoing and potential environmental impacts posed by both current and historic mining in the Region are significant, particularly in Idaho and Alaska.
Region 10's Mining Strategy seeks to address the challenges posed by historic, active, and proposed mines. The Strategic Principles developed by the Mining Team will guide efforts to design and implement a more effective mining program. The specific initiatives to be undertaken were developed to provide both short-term improvements, as well as long-term refocusing of our mining program. Three critical themes guide this effort: good science and engineering early in the planning process is essential to managing environmental concerns; priorities must be established (both programmatic and geographic); and finally, we must work in partnership with others to increase our effectiveness and support the work of others.
[ Main Cleanup | Site List | Brownfields ]
[ Superfund | CERCLIS Reports | FOIA | Records Center ]
Unit: Site Cleanup Unit 4
Point of contact: Mary Jane Nearman
E-Mail: nearman.maryjane@epa.gov
Phone Number: (206) 553-6642
Last Updated: 01/03/2003
|