The threat to drinking water from abandoned mines in the West remains unknown

By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, The Asso­ci­at­ed Press

SALT LAKE CITY — There are hun­dreds of thou­sands of aban­doned hard rock min­ing sites or fea­tures scat­tered through­out the West, and fed­er­al and state offi­cials are nowhere close to iden­ti­fy­ing those that poten­tial­ly pose a haz­ard to drink­ing water.

The Gold King Mine spill in Col­orado, which released a tor­rent of ugly mus­tard-col­ored pol­lu­tants that con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed water­ways in three states and the Nava­jo Nation, was a visu­al­ly graph­ic reminder from five years ago of how much of a threat and expense these aban­doned mines pose.

Hun­dreds of legal claims were filed against the U.S. Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency — which had over­sight of the mine’s reme­di­a­tion when it breached — with Utah set­tling its law­suit just this month with the fed­er­al agency over Gold King Mine.

In the agree­ment, the EPA said it would ini­ti­ate a pre­lim­i­nary Super­fund assess­ment for a trio of sites in Utah, includ­ing two for­mer min­ing dis­tricts in Big Cot­ton­wood and Lit­tle Cot­ton­wood canyons, which are home to hun­dreds of lega­cy mines scat­tered on a patch­work of both pub­lic and pri­vate land.

Their exis­tence in the canyons is an uncom­fort­able and threat­en­ing specter, since the Wasatch Canyons pro­vide 60% of the Salt Lake Valley’s drink­ing water, hailed as one of the most pris­tine resources because it comes from a nat­ur­al reser­voir of snow­pack and rush­es from treat­ment to tap in just 24 hours.

But mine debris and waste rock in those canyons have already cre­at­ed impair­ment prob­lems for aquat­ic life due to the con­t­a­m­i­nants of cop­per and cad­mi­um, the lat­ter of which is a car­cino­gen. Zinc has also been deter­mined to be a threat to aquat­ic life in Lit­tle Cot­ton­wood Canyon.

Eri­ca Gad­dis, direc­tor of the Utah Divi­sion of Water Qual­i­ty, said the stan­dard for cold water fish­eries is much stricter because the ani­mals exist in the water 24/7. The con­t­a­m­i­nants, she stressed, are not test­ing at lev­els of con­cern for drink­ing water standards.

But some peo­ple fear it is only a mat­ter of time that the lega­cy waste from hard rock min­ing in the canyons will fil­ter into the creeks at such lev­els that drink­ing water is com­pro­mised beyond the abil­i­ty for treat­ment plants to han­dle, whether it is the water itself or washed down sediment.

“I am con­cerned this is a prob­lem that has been ignored for too long,” said Salt Lake Coun­ty Coun­cil­man Richard Snelgrove.

“There are a lot of ques­tions and solu­tions are long over­due. I am pleased that the EPA is look­ing at this as a poten­tial Super­fund cleanup site. It is obvi­ous that not all is well in that canyon.”

Snel­grove said he is an avid hik­er and espe­cial­ly likes to ven­ture into the more remote Cardiff area in Big Cot­ton­wood Canyon.

“On a per­son­al lev­el I cher­ish these moun­tains. They are some of our crown jew­els, not only for Salt Lake Coun­ty but the state of Utah.”

He was up there three years ago and was star­tled to see aban­doned mine waste and rusty col­ored water trick­ling over it, even­tu­al­ly wind­ing its way into Big Cot­ton­wood Creek.

“Rusty water comes out of those mine shafts, flows over these tail­ings that noth­ing will grow on and then flows into our drink­ing water for Salt Lake County.”

The prop­er­ty own­er is alleged to be Salt Lake City, which in its water­shed plan in 1999 iden­ti­fied met­al con­t­a­m­i­na­tion from lega­cy mine sites as a prob­lem that mer­it­ed a reme­di­a­tion plan to be put into place by 2001 — near­ly 20 years ago.

That plan is not in place.

“Salt Lake City has some explain­ing to do on their prop­er­ty. They need to clean up their trash heap,” Snel­grove said.

Lau­ra Briefer, direc­tor of the Salt Lake City Divi­sion of Pub­lic Util­i­ties, said what Snel­grove is see­ing is like­ly waste rock, not tail­ings. And while the city owns chunks of prop­er­ty in the Cardiff area, Briefer said she could not say if the prop­er­ty Snel­grove is ref­er­enc­ing is city-owned with­out doing a site visit.

“We don’t have tail­ings in the Wasatch Canyons,” she said, adding there are mine tun­nels that may be leach­ing water, but their risk in Big Cot­ton­wood Canyon has yet to be assessed and drink­ing water stan­dards are being met.

Yet despite the water­shed plan from 1999 dic­tat­ing a mit­i­ga­tion effort in place for the canyons, Salt Lake City doesn’t appear close to know­ing the extent of the prob­lem on the very prop­er­ty it owns.

“I am not aware of Salt Lake City own­ing prop­er­ty with mine waste in Cardiff or in Lit­tle Cot­ton­wood Canyon. We would need to sur­vey the prop­er­ty to under­stand and con­firm prop­er­ty own­er­ship,” Briefer said, even though state min­ing offi­cials told the agency city- owned prop­er­ty had mine open­ings in Cardiff.

Briefer said the city still needs to con­firm what the state agency informed them.

The EPA announce­ment that it would ini­ti­ate Super­fund site inves­ti­ga­tions at lega­cy min­ing sites in the canyons came as a sur­prise to Briefer, she said, but the city wel­comes the review.

“I think this is a good out­come to the set­tle­ment,” she said. “But often these inves­ti­ga­tions do not lead to a Super­fund assess­ment. We would be sur­prised if it did.”

But Snel­grove said there needs to be greater action to reme­di­ate these sites in more remote areas that may pose a risk.

“The mine open­ings are still open the way they were left 100 years ago. When it comes to health and safe­ty issues, that is not a good excuse,” he said. “The mag­ni­tude is enor­mous and the con­se­quences are enor­mous, so we can’t have the atti­tude of, ‘Noth­ing to see here, just move along.’”

Mark Allen, founder of Pro­tect and Pre­serve Amer­i­can Fork Canyon and the exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Amer­i­can Fork Canyon Alliance, agrees with Snelgrove.

“It is kind of a ter­mite prob­lem. If there is a barn burn­ing down, every­one races to put out the fire. But if a ter­mite is eat­ing at the foun­da­tion, it is out of sight and out of mind.”

Allen, frus­trat­ed over heavy met­als con­t­a­m­i­na­tion at for­mer mine sites in Amer­i­can Fork Canyon, peti­tioned the EPA to con­duct a site assess­ment of their risks on the heels of the Tib­ble Fork Dam release in August of 2016.

A $7.3 mil­lion reha­bil­i­ta­tion project to drain the lake inad­ver­tent­ly trig­gered a large release of met­als-laden sed­i­ment into the north fork of the Amer­i­can Fork River.

The result was a sig­nif­i­cant fish kill and met­als pol­lu­tion that threat­ened many down­stream communities.

Allen said he believes the Tib­ble Fork release was many times more severe than Gold King Mine, but because it wasn’t as visu­al with the yel­low­ish iron oxides in Col­orado, and was con­tained in one geo­graph­i­cal area, it didn’t gar­ner the same attention.

“(Gold King) was an extreme­ly visu­al event of pol­lu­tion. It was so graph­ic,” Allen said.

Gad­dis said the Tib­ble Fork release has large­ly been set­tled, with mon­i­tor­ing that has gone on in sub­se­quent years show­ing con­cen­tra­tions of con­t­a­m­i­nants at lev­els that adhere to fed­er­al standards.

The EPA, at Allen’s request, is con­tin­u­ing to review the upstream threats posed by lega­cy mines that through streams and creeks deposit the met­als in sed­i­ment that can be washed downstream.

Ryan Dun­ham, the EPA’s site assess­ment man­ag­er for the Amer­i­can Fork Canyon review, said the agency con­clud­ed the mine sites did not war­rant a large scale cleanup, although anoth­er branch of the EPA is con­tin­u­ing to work with the state and pri­vate prop­er­ty own­ers such as Snow­bird to mit­i­gate recre­ation­al threats.

Sig­nage and fenc­ing have been put up to keep ATV enthu­si­asts off the tail­ings and to warn of poten­tial exposure.

Snow­bird vol­un­tar­i­ly imple­ment­ed its own pro­gram to address issues at Mary Ellen Gulch, is con­duct­ing sam­pling and will be grant­ed a water qual­i­ty pol­lu­tion dis­charge per­mit for the site — at the resort’s request — which adds anoth­er lay­er of reg­u­la­to­ry oversight.

Gad­dis said that par­tic­u­lar per­mit pro­gram where prop­er­ty own­ers can be iden­ti­fied and there is active work on the prop­er­ty will roll out in the future under guid­ance from the EPA.

She added that one of the biggest hur­dles in address­ing mine waste is map­ping the sites, iden­ti­fy­ing the own­ers and deter­min­ing the pri­or­i­ty at which they should be mitigated.

A 2020 report by the U.S. Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­i­ty Office explored the breadth of the prob­lem, uncov­er­ing some sober­ing sta­tis­tics that should give one pause.

Con­sid­er:

The Bureau of Land Man­age­ment esti­mates that based on cur­rent staffing and resources, it will take 500 years for the agency to com­plete an inven­to­ry of aban­doned hard rock mines and fea­tures on its land.

The EPA esti­mates that based on cur­rent data­bas­es there are more than a half mil­lion aban­doned hard rock min­ing sites on BLM, Nation­al Park Ser­vice and For­est Ser­vice lands.

In 13 West­ern states that include Utah, the inven­to­ry puts aban­doned mine sites at about 246,000 with­in their bor­ders, but esti­mates are like­ly that the num­ber is at 620,000.

As of July 2019, the actu­al envi­ron­men­tal haz­ard costs of the 25 most expen­sive min­ing and min­er­al pro­cess­ing sites ranged from $50 mil­lion to $583 mil­lion per site, and the EPA has been work­ing on some of these for more than 20 years.

The costs are stag­ger­ing to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, to states, to pri­vate prop­er­ty owners.

EPA spent $2.9 bil­lion through fis­cal years 2008 through 2017 to iden­ti­fy, clean up and mon­i­tor haz­ards at aban­doned hard rock mines. The 13 West­ern states includ­ed in the report spent a col­lec­tive $117 mil­lion in non­fed­er­al funds dur­ing the same time peri­od, with Cal­i­for­nia, Col­orado and Ida­ho spend­ing the bulk of that — 86%, accord­ing to the Gov­ern­ment Account­abil­i­ty Office report.

The EPA said to its knowl­edge, no fed­er­al agen­cies or the states have a com­pre­hen­sive dataset that could pro­vide the extent of the prob­lem asso­ci­at­ed with what’s called “mine influ­enced waters” through­out the coun­try or in the West. Those waters gen­er­al­ly con­tain dis­solved met­als or met­al­loids which may include lead, cop­per, sil­ver, man­ganese, cad­mi­um, iron, zinc and mer­cury, among others.

It added that ele­vat­ed con­cen­tra­tions of these met­als in sur­face water and ground­wa­ter can elim­i­nate their use as drink­ing water or aquat­ic habitat.

Addi­tion­al­ly, through its Super­fund pro­gram, the EPA tracks approx­i­mate­ly 500 hard rock min­ing and/or min­er­al pro­cess­ing sites across the coun­try, which rep­re­sents less than 0.1% of the aban­doned hard rock min­ing sites.

Against that back­drop, Allen said he believes more needs to be done.

“Ken­necott has worked hard to clean up what they own, but that mind­set needs to move up to the canyons,” he said. “Nobody has bud­gets to clean up our water­sheds so they just pre­tend it is not an issue. … It is like play­ing pin the tail on the don­key. Nobody wants to be the donkey.”

Gad­dis said her divi­sion has been work­ing close­ly with the Utah Divi­sion of Oil, Gas and Min­ing to launch an inven­to­ry lat­er this year that will specif­i­cal­ly work to doc­u­ment dis­charg­ing mines in the state of Utah, with num­bers that are not known at present.

”After the Gold King Mine spill hap­pened, we got a lot of inquiries if this were prob­lem­at­ic in Utah,” said Steve Fluke, admin­is­tra­tor over the min­ing division’s Aban­doned Mine Recla­ma­tion Program.

“There is not a com­pre­hen­sive inven­to­ry in this state or frankly any oth­er state. … But there are not a lot of flow­ing mines in the state because it is so dry. There are nat­u­ral­ly more in the Wasatch. In the Wasatch, we have noticed mines that have some pret­ty sig­nif­i­cant flows.”

The work done by the min­ing divi­sion thus far has revealed 29 mines dis­charg­ing water or mine waste in the Wasatch Moun­tains, but it is not con­clu­sive. Over­all, Fluke said there are an esti­mat­ed 16,000 haz­ardous mine open­ings in Utah — count­ed as a hole in the ground greater than 10 feet deep — of which about 6,500 have been closed.

Fluke said he noticed two col­lapsed mine adits, or what appear to be, while hik­ing in Cardiff that he brought to the atten­tion of oth­er state agen­cies and the EPA.

“I would not want to say they are tick­ing time bombs wait­ing for a Gold King Mine inci­dent, but they need to be looked into,” he said. “Who knows what it would take to break them?”

Gad­dis agreed the aban­doned mines in the Wasatch Canyons pose poten­tial problems.

“Cer­tain­ly the dis­charg­ing mines in the Wasatch where we have impaired water qual­i­ty, that is a con­cern for aquat­ic life,” she said.

Beyond inven­to­ry chal­lenges and lim­it­ed bud­gets, Gad­dis said states encounter mine con­t­a­m­i­na­tion instances that don’t rise to the lev­el of fed­er­al inter­ven­tion at a height­ened lev­el under the Clean Water Act.

Amer­i­can Fork Canyon, for exam­ple, didn’t war­rant cleanup action under fed­er­al stan­dards, with the EPA site assess­ment man­ag­er adding that sam­pling in the years after the Tib­ble Fork release demon­strate good water qual­i­ty overall.

The GAO notes that until the 1970s, mine oper­a­tors were not required to reme­di­ate the land after a mine’s resources had been exhaust­ed, so they could just walk away.

While gov­ern­ment enti­ties and con­ser­va­tion groups, for exam­ple, may want to step in to ini­ti­ate a cleanup, that means assum­ing lia­bil­i­ty — and those strin­gent lia­bil­i­ty rules hin­der vol­un­tary efforts.

Wor­ries over lia­bil­i­ty prompt­ed the Uin­ta-Wasatch-Cache Nation­al For­est Ser­vice to express con­cern over any pro­posed land trades after it iden­ti­fied pri­vate lands involved in the deal that con­tained lega­cy mine sites. A For­est Ser­vice memo from 2019 said the agency would not acquire any lands in the Wasatch Canyons with mine tun­nels or parcels with waste rock piles greater than a half-acre in size.

The exit of the For­est Ser­vice from those por­tions of the swap, which was part of a pro­posed fed­er­al des­ig­na­tion, was a set­back for negotiations.

For­est Super­vi­sor Dave Whit­tekiend said aban­doned hard rock mines are a prob­lem in the forest.

“The Cot­ton­woods and Amer­i­can Fork is where we have had the biggest issue with con­t­a­m­i­na­tion of heavy met­als,” he said.

Reme­di­a­tion has been encour­aged through some­thing called the good Samar­i­tan pro­gram in which the EPA enters into set­tle­ment agree­ments with vol­un­teer par­ties will­ing to do cleanup work with­out tak­ing on the liability.

The admin­is­tra­tive guid­ance, some crit­ics say, is not strong enough to ward off lia­bil­i­ty under the Clean Water Act so it has its lim­i­ta­tions absent a nar­row­ly tai­lored fed­er­al leg­isla­tive fix.

But so far, the EPA has entered into three set­tle­ment agree­ments that did not require a Clean Water Act per­mit and is cur­rent­ly work­ing with a good Samar­i­tan on a Col­orado aban­doned mine for poten­tial remediation.

Snel­grove said it is imper­a­tive agen­cies and peo­ple work togeth­er to solve the mine waste prob­lems in the canyons and con­quer these hurdles.

The coun­cil­man, who rep­re­sents all coun­ty res­i­dents through his at-large seat, said Salt Lake Coun­ty has to be one of those enti­ties doing more. Ear­li­er this year, when the coun­ty updat­ed and adopt­ed its gen­er­al plan, which includes issues need­ed to be tack­led in the canyons, Snel­grove vot­ed against it.

His objec­tions? He said it did not ade­quate­ly address canyon threats such as wild­fire risk and mine waste remediation.

“My con­cern was raised two or three years ago when I hiked the Cardiff area and it was accel­er­at­ed with the EPA announce­ment of pos­si­ble Super­fund des­ig­na­tion,” he said.

“If the atti­tude pre­vails of there is noth­ing to see here and we kick the can down the road — instead of it being a prob­lem for 1 mil­lion peo­ple in this val­ley, it will be a prob­lem for 2 mil­lion peo­ple in the decades to come — and it will be a prob­lem for our chil­dren and grandchildren.”



Tags: design TT Mod­ell­bahn TT H0 N schal­ten mod­elleisen­bahn bahn spiele­max preise 

Ein Reichsmarschall von Adolf Hitler hatte auch Märklin Modelleisenbahn Modelle > read more

Schreibe einen Kommentar