Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines

228 Pages·2006·1.38 MB·English

by  Jim Kuipers

Comparison of Predicted and
Actual Water Quality at Hardrock
Mines
The reliability of predictions in
Environmental Impact Statements
Kuipers &
Buka
Associates
Environmental
Comparison of Predicted and Actual
Water Quality at Hardrock Mines

The reliability of predictions in
Environmental Impact Statements

James R. Kuipers
Kuipers & Associates
Butte, Montana

Ann S. Maest
Buka Environmental
Boulder, Colorado

Contributing Authors:

Kimberley A. MacHardy
Kuipers & Associates
Butte, Montana

Gregory Lawson
Buka Environmental
Boulder, Colorado
Copyright © 2006 by Kuipers & Associates and Buka Environmental.
All Rights Reserved.

Excerpts from this book may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes without permission provided full
acknowledgement is given to the authors as follows:

Kuipers, J.R., Maest, A.S., MacHardy, K.A., and Lawson, G. 2006. Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water
Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements.

Copies of this publication may be obtained from:

Kuipers & Associates
PO Box 641, Butte, MT USA 59703
406.782.3441
[email protected]
www.kuipersassoc.com

Buka Environmental
729 Walnut Street, Suite D5, Boulder, CO, 80302 USA
303.449.0390
[email protected]

EARTHWORKS
1612 K St., NW, Suite 808, Washington, DC, 20006 USA
202.887.1872
[email protected]
www.mineralpolicy.org/earthworks_at_home.cfm

Photo credits
Front Cover: Left- Tailings impoundment at the Greens Creek Mine in Alaska USA (Courtesy of David Chambers).
Center – Heap leach pad at Marigold Mine in Nevada (Ann Maest). Right – Waste rock dump and open pit at Beal
Mountain Mine in Montana (Jim Kuipers). Back cover: Open pit at the Golden Sunlight Mine, Montana (Courtesy of
Jeff Barber).

This publication was made possible by EARTHWORKS in Washington, DC, USA with the support of the Wilburforce
Foundation of Seattle, Washington, USA. EARTHWORKS is a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting
communities and the environment from the destructive impacts of mineral development in the U.S. and worldwide.
The organization’s mission is to work with communities and grassroots groups to reform government policies,
improve corporate practices, influence investment decisions and encourage responsible materials sourcing and
consumption.

Printed on Recycled Paper
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines PREFACE

PREFACE

The overall purpose of this study is to examine the reliability of pre-mining water quality predictions at hard rock
mining operations in the United States. To our knowledge, no effort has previously been made to systematically
compare predicted and actual water quality for mines in the U.S. or elsewhere. Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs) and similar documents under federal and state law are the single publicly available source of water quality
predictions for hard rock mines, and thus they were chosen as the information foundation for conducting the research.
In designing the project, we decided to look broadly at as many mines as possible rather than concentrate on an in-
depth analysis of a few mines. This approach – which shows general trends and can more easily be extrapolated to
the larger set of hard rock mines – will provide the most useful results for mine regulators, which are the principal
intended audience for the study. More in-depth studies of individual mines would be a natural next step for
continuing investigations.

As part of the study, requests were made to federal and state agencies to provide National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) documents and information on operational water quality. The effort required to obtain the documents and
information, although initially expected to be onerous, was more arduous and protracted than we imagined. We were
surprised to find that no single repository exists for NEPA documents, although the Environmental Protection Agency
does have most EISs on microfiche. Technical reports associated with EISs were extremely difficult to obtain.
Similarly, the availability of operational water quality information was uneven, ranging from disorganized paper-only
copies in some states to user-friendly electronic information in others. The authors are grateful to the many agencies
that did provide documents and water quality data. One of the most important recommendations in the report is that
operational water quality data should be made available to the public in a transparent and easily accessible manner.

The report finds that adverse impacts to water quality are common at mine sites, and they are most often caused by
failed mitigation. We recommend that a more in-depth study of the effectiveness of common mitigation measures be
undertaken. Another important cause of water quality impacts is errors in geochemical and hydrologic
characterization of the mined materials and the mine site area. The companion report (Predicting Water Quality at
Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State- of-the-Art) makes a number of concrete suggestions
for improving characterization and predictions.

This report also identifies inherent risk factors that may lead to water quality impacts. Although all mines require
carefully executed mitigation measures, mines close to water resources with high acid drainage or contaminant
leaching potential need special attention in terms of mitigation and characterization. Adopting protective mitigation
and characterization approaches, as recommended here and in the companion report, will help prevent unacceptable
water quality impacts, decrease long-term costs, and help instill public trust in the industry. This report is ultimately
intended to advance the practice of science, engineering and regulation related to water quality prediction, the
recognition of risk, and the application of effective mitigation to hardrock mines. The authors encourage ongoing
cooperative efforts with regulators, scientists and engineers, non-governmental organizations, and industry to further
the work begun in this study.

Jim Kuipers
Butte, Montana
and
Ann Maest
Boulder, Colorado
September 2006
i
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines AUTHORS
AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

AUTHORS

Jim (James R.) Kuipers, P.E., of Kuipers & Associates, is a mining engineer with over 20 years of experience in
mine permitting, design, construction, operations, reclamation, water treatment and cost estimation. He has extensive
experience in the gold and copper mining industries and has worked in the U.S., Canada, Latin America and former
USSR. Since 1996 he has focused his work on providing expertise in mine permitting and reclamation and closure
issues in addition to publishing articles and giving presentations on financial assurance. Over the course of his career
he has had gained extensive knowledge in the various methods and models used to predict water quality at both
existing and proposed mine sites as well as their regulatory applications. Mr. Kuipers holds a BS degree in mineral
process engineering from Montana College of Mineral Science and Technology and is a registered professional
engineer in Colorado and Montana.

Ann S. Maest, PhD, of Buka Environmental, is an aqueous geochemist specializing in the fate and transport of
contaminants in natural waters. As a consultant, she has designed, conducted, and managed hydrogeochemistry and
modeling studies and worked on independent monitoring and community capacity building projects at numerous
mining sites in the U.S. and Latin America. At the U.S. Geological Survey, she conducted research on metal and
metalloid speciation in surface water and groundwater. Dr. Maest has published articles on the fate and transport of
metals in natural waters and served on national and international committees related to hardrock mining and
sustainable development. She holds a PhD in geochemistry and water resources from Princeton University and an
undergraduate degree in geology from Boston University.

Kimberley A. MacHardy, Associate Geoscientist with Kuipers & Associates, has a Master’s Degree in Geosciences
from Montana Tech of The University of Montana. Ms. MacHardy has worked on mine sites in Montana, and mine
impacted sites in Nevada, prepared sampling and analysis plans, and coordinated, conducted, and directed field
sampling programs. She has worked for two years on the Good Neighbor Agreement for the Stillwater Mine in
Montana, where she conducted monthly sampling for water quality parameters and river flows on the Stillwater River,
as well as periodic macroinvertebrate and nutrient sampling on both the Stillwater and East Boulder Rivers in
Montana.

Gregory Lawson, Associate Geologist with Buka Environmental, has an undergraduate degree in geology from
Oberlin College. Mr. Lawson has conducted field work in Japan and the Dominican Republic and has taken course
work in chemistry, mineralogy, hydrology, and environmental geology. Mr. Lawson is currently pursuing a PhD in
geology at the University of California at Riverside.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Project advice, input and internal peer review were provided by Tom Myers, PhD, hydrogeologist, Dave Chambers,
PhD, Center for Science in Public Participation and Glenn Miller, PhD, biochemist, of the University of Nevada-
Reno. Technical review and editing was performed by Peggy Utesch and Sarah Zuzulock.

Various versions of the database, report and sections of the report were sent to state and federal regulators and
industry consultants for review and comment. Because of the nature of this report, with many site specific examples,
it was difficult to obtain peer review for every example and for the report as a whole. Reviewers included regulators
from EPA, BLM and the Forest Service as well as industry consultants, and included Stephen Hoffman and Patricia
McGrath of the EPA; and Jack Mozingo (Black & Veatch) and Andrew Robertson (Robertson Geoconsultants). The
authors take sole responsibility for the contents of the report and will consider additional review comments for future
publication or additional efforts derived from this report.

The involvement of all the reviewers lead to substantial improvements to this report and are greatly appreciated

ii
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines CONTENTS

CONTENTS

PREFACE........................................................................................................................................................i
AUTHORS.......................................................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................................ii
CONTENTS....................................................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS...................................................................................................................................x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ES-1
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
1.1. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH............................................................................................1
2. NEPA AND WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS.............................................................................3
2.1. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT..........................................................3
2.2. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS IN THE NEPA PROCESS................................................................3
3. THE SCIENCE OF WATER QUALITY PREDICTION AND MITIGATION..............................5
3.1. SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL....................................................................................................5
3.2. GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION...............................................................................5
3.3. WATER QUALITY MODELING................................................................................................6
4. IDENTIFICATION OF MAJOR MINES SUBJECT TO NEPA......................................................8
4.1. MAJOR MINES..............................................................................................................................8
4.1.1. METHOD AND APPROACH...............................................................................................8
4.1.2. LOCATION...........................................................................................................................13
4.1.3. COMMODITY......................................................................................................................15
4.1.4. EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING METHODS...........................................................15
4.1.5. OPERATIONAL STATUS..................................................................................................15
4.1.6. DISTURBANCE AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.........................................................16
4.1.7. NPDES INFORMATION.....................................................................................................16
4.2. MAJOR MINES WITH NEPA EIS ANALYSIS.......................................................................16
4.2.1. LOCATION...........................................................................................................................17
4.2.2. COMMODITY......................................................................................................................17
4.2.3. EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING METHODS...........................................................18
4.2.4. OPERATIONAL STATUS..................................................................................................19
4.3. COLLECTION OF EISS FOR MINES SUBJECT TO NEPA................................................19
4.3.1. LOCATION...........................................................................................................................19
4.3.2. COMMODITY......................................................................................................................20
4.3.3. EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING METHODS...........................................................21
4.3.4. OPERATIONAL STATUS..................................................................................................21
4.3.5. NPDES INFORMATION.....................................................................................................21
4.4. COMPARISON OF MINE INFORMATION...........................................................................21
5. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS INFORMATION..............................................................23
5.1. SUMMARY OF RESULTS.........................................................................................................23
5.2. GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION.....................................................................................27
5.3. CLIMATE.....................................................................................................................................31
5.4. HYDROLOGY..............................................................................................................................35
5.4.1. SURFACE WATER PROXIMITY.....................................................................................35
5.4.2. DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER..........................................................................................37
5.5. GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND MODELING............................................39
5.5.1. TESTING METHODS.........................................................................................................39
iii
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines CONTENTS

5.5.2. CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED.............................................................43
5.5.3. PREDICTIVE MODELS USED.........................................................................................44
5.6. WATER QUALITY IMPACT POTENTIAL............................................................................46
5.6.1. ACID DRAINAGE POTENTIAL.......................................................................................46
5.6.2. CONTAMINANT LEACHING POTENTIAL..................................................................49
5.6.3. POTENTIAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS................................................52
5.6.4. POTENTIAL SURFACE WATER QUALITY IMPACTS..............................................54
5.6.5. POTENTIAL PIT WATER IMPACTS..............................................................................57
5.7. PROPOSED MITIGATION........................................................................................................60
5.7.1. PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MITIGATION..............................................................60
5.7.2. PROPOSED SURFACE WATER MITIGATION............................................................62
5.7.3. PROPOSED PIT WATER MITIGATION........................................................................64
5.7.4. PROPOSED WATER TREATMENT................................................................................66
5.8. PREDICTED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS..........................................................................68
5.8.1. PREDICTED GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACTS................................................69
5.8.2. PREDICTED SURFACE WATER IMPACTS..................................................................72
5.8.3. PREDICTED PIT WATER IMPACTS..............................................................................75
5.9. DISCHARGE INFORMATION..................................................................................................78
5.10. GENERAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS IN
THE NEPA DOCUMENTS.....................................................................................................................80
5.10.1. GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS: GEOLOGY/MINERALIZATION, ACID
DRAINAGE POTENTIAL, AND CONTAMINANT LEACHING POTENTIAL........................80
5.10.2. HYDROLOGIC AND CLIMATIC CHARACTERISTICS.............................................81
5.10.3. COMBINATIONS OF GEOCHEMICAL AND HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS
AND RELATIONSHIP TO POTENTIAL AND PREDICTED WATER QUALITY IMPACTS83
5.10.4. CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................85
6. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS AND IMPACTS AT NEPA MINES...................................87
6.1. METHODS AND APPROACH...................................................................................................87
6.2. GENERAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE STUDY MINES88
6.2.1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CASE STUDY MINES......................................88
6.2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RELATED TO WATER QUALITY..............92
6.3. PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY AT THE CASE STUDY MINES.........97
6.3.1. GREENS CREEK, ALASKA..............................................................................................97
6.3.1.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY...................................................97
6.3.1.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.........................................................98
6.3.1.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY..............98
6.3.2. BAGDAD, ARIZONA........................................................................................................100
6.3.2.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................100
6.3.2.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................100
6.3.2.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............101
6.3.3. RAY MINE,ARIZONA......................................................................................................102
6.3.3.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................102
6.3.3.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................102
6.3.3.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............104
6.3.4. AMERICAN GIRL, CALIFORNIA.................................................................................104
6.3.4.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................104
6.3.4.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................106
6.3.4.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............106
iv
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines CONTENTS

6.3.5. CASTLE MOUNTAIN, CALIFORNIA...........................................................................107
6.3.5.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................107
6.3.5.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................108
6.3.5.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............108
6.3.6. JAMESTOWN, CALIFORNIA.........................................................................................108
6.3.6.1. WATER QUALITY SUMMARY.............................................................................108
6.3.6.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................110
6.3.6.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............110
6.3.7. MCLAUGHLIN, CALIFORNIA......................................................................................112
6.3.7.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................112
6.3.7.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................113
6.3.7.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............114
6.3.8. MESQUITE, CALIFORNIA.............................................................................................115
6.3.8.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................115
6.3.8.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................117
6.3.8.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............117
6.3.9. ROYAL MOUNTAIN KING, CALIFORNIA.................................................................118
6.3.9.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................118
6.3.9.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................119
6.3.9.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............120
6.3.10. GROUSE CREEK, IDAHO...............................................................................................122
6.3.10.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................122
6.3.10.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................122
6.3.10.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............123
6.3.11. THOMPSON CREEK, IDAHO........................................................................................124
6.3.11.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................124
6.3.11.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................126
6.3.11.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............126
6.3.12. BEAL MOUNTAIN, MONTANA.....................................................................................127
6.3.12.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................127
6.3.12.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................129
6.3.12.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............130
6.3.13. BLACK PINE, MONTANA...............................................................................................131
6.3.13.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................131
6.3.13.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................132
6.3.13.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............133
6.3.14. GOLDEN SUNLIGHT, MONTANA................................................................................134
6.3.14.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................134
6.3.14.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................136
6.3.14.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............136
6.3.15. MINERAL HILL, MONTANA.........................................................................................139
6.3.15.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................139
6.3.15.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................140
6.3.15.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............140
6.3.16. STILLWATER, MONTANA ............................................................................................141
6.3.16.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................141
6.3.16.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................142
6.3.16.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............142
v
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines CONTENTS

6.3.17. ZORTMAN AND LANDUSKY, MONTANA.................................................................144
6.3.17.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................144
6.3.17.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................146
6.3.17.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............147
6.3.18. FLORIDA CANYON, NEVADA......................................................................................148
6.3.18.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................148
6.3.18.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................149
6.3.18.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............149
6.3.19. JERRITT CANYON, NEVADA.......................................................................................150
6.3.19.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................150
6.3.19.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................151
6.3.19.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............152
6.3.20. LONE TREE, NEVADA....................................................................................................153
6.3.20.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................153
6.3.20.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................154
6.3.20.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............154
6.3.21. ROCHESTER, NEVADA..................................................................................................155
6.3.21.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................155
6.3.21.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................156
6.3.21.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............157
6.3.22. ROUND MOUNTAIN, NEVADA.....................................................................................158
6.3.22.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................158
6.3.22.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................159
6.3.22.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............159
6.3.23. RUBY HILL, NEVADA.....................................................................................................160
6.3.23.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................160
6.3.23.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................161
6.3.23.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............161
6.3.24. TWIN CREEKS, NEVADA...............................................................................................161
6.3.24.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................162
6.3.24.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................163
6.3.24.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............163
6.3.25. FLAMBEAU, WISCONSIN..............................................................................................165
6.3.25.1. WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS SUMMARY.................................................165
6.3.25.2. ACTUAL WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.......................................................166
6.3.25.3. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND ACTUAL WATER QUALITY............166
7. SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY FINDINGS AND INHERENT FACTORS AFFECTING
OPERATIONAL WATER QUALITY.....................................................................................................168
7.1. ACCURACY OF WATER QUALITY PREDICTIONS: SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY
FINDINGS...............................................................................................................................................168
7.1.1. ACID DRAINAGE/CONTAMINANT LEACHING POTENTIAL AND
DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................................................168
7.1.2. PREDICTED AND ACTUAL IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER RESOURCES....171
7.1.3. PREDICTED AND ACTUAL IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER RESOURCES......173
7.2. INHERENT FACTORS AFFECTING WATER QUALITY AT CASE STUDY MINES..175
7.2.1. MINES WITH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SURFACE WATER AND MODERATE TO
HIGH ACID DRAINAGE OR CONTAMINANT LEACHING POTENTIAL...........................176
vi
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines CONTENTS

7.2.2. MINES WITH SHALLOW DEPTH OR DISCHARGES TO GROUNDWATER AND
WITH MODERATE TO HIGH ACID DRAINAGE OR CONTAMINANT LEACHING
POTENTIAL.......................................................................................................................................179
7.3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................184
8. FAILURE MODES AND ROOT CAUSES OF WATER QUALITY IMPACTS........................185
8.1. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH....................................................................................185
8.1.1. FAILURE MODES AND ROOT CAUSES......................................................................185
8.2. EXAMPLES OF CHARACTERIZATION FAILURES FROM CASE STUDY MINES...186
8.2.1. HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION FAILURES.................................................186
8.2.2. GEOCHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION FAILURES..............................................187
8.3. MITIGATION FAILURES........................................................................................................189
8.4. SUMMARY OF RESULTS.......................................................................................................192
8.5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................193
9. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................195

Appendix A – Major Mine Statistical Information (available electronically only)
Appendix B - Case Study Detailed Information (available electronically only)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 A mine site conceptual model with pathways and opportunities for hydrologic and
geochemical modeling......................................................................................................................................................7

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. Comparison of General Categories for All Hard Rock Mines, NEPA-eligible Mines and Mines
with Reviewed EISs (% of mines in sub-category)....................................................................................................ES-4
Table ES-2. Case Study Mines.................................................................................................................................ES-5
Table ES-3. Comparison of General Categories for All Mines with Reviewed EISs and Case Study Mines
(% of mines in subcategory).......................................................................................................................................ES-6
Table ES-4. Comparison of EIS Elements for All Mines with Reviewed EISs and Case Study Mines
(% of mines with sub-element)...................................................................................................................................ES-7
Table ES-5. Summary of Predicted and Actual Impacts to Surface Water Resources at Case Study Mines...........ES-9
Table ES-6. Summary of Predicted and Actual Impacts to Groundwater Resources at Case Study Mines.............ES-9
Table ES-7a. Summary of Acid Drainage Potential Predictions and Results for Case Study Mines.......................ES-9
Table ES-7b. Summary of Contaminant Leaching Potential Predictions and Results for Case Study Mines
(percentages)............................................................................................................................................................ES-10
Table ES-8. Surface Water Quality Impacts for Mines with Close Proximity to Surface Water and
Elevated Acid Drainage Potential Compared to Surface Water Impacts for All Case Study Mines........................ES-11
Table ES-9. Groundwater Quality Impacts for Mines with Close Proximity to Groundwater and
Elevated Acid Drainage Potential Compared to Groundwater Impacts for All Case Study Mines.........................ES-12
Table ES-10. Water Quality Predictions Failure Modes, Root Causes and Examples from Case Study Mines....ES-14
Table ES-11. Summary of Failure Modes for Case Study Mines..........................................................................ES-14
Table 4.1. General Information for Major Hardrock Metals Mines in U.S. Operating from 1975 to Present................9
Table 4.2. General Information for Major Hardrock Mines.........................................................................................14
Table 4.3. General Information for Major Mines Subject to NEPA.............................................................................18
Table 4.4. General Information for Mines with Reviewed EISs..................................................................................20
Table 4.5. Comparison of Major Mines, Mines Subject to NEPA and Major Mines Subject to NEPA
with EIS Reviewed in Detail..........................................................................................................................................22
vii