The Environmental Protection Agency recently released their plans to spend significant funds for simple fixes of the “low lying fruits” in the Animas River watershed. They are, unfortunately, just what many stakeholders feared if the EPA was allowed to take over much of the watershed as a Superfund site.
In their recent litigation petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Sunnyside Gold Corporation and others, presented the case that the required evaluations and hazardous waste scoring of 27 of the 46 named sites, plus two study areas, was not accomplished.
Without basic site characterization, including identifying and quantifying the contaminants leaving the site, it is impossible to logically prioritize remediation efforts and evaluate results. For example, EPA’s current plan to simply divert surface water away from mine waste is not a “no-brainer,” as the EPA implies. One has to first determine if the mine waste is acting beneficially to sequester contaminants from the surface water or if it is a source of additional contamination.
The Animas River Stakeholders Group spent more than seven years characterizing over 400 historic mine sites within the Upper Animas Watershed. The ARSG determined that 33 draining mines and 34 mine waste sites were responsible for more than 90 percent of the metal contamination coming from mine sources. Those sites were identified, prioritized and chosen for remediation. With 40 percent of all funding coming from voluntary sources (property owners, mining companies, citizens groups and other ARSG participants), the low lying fruits of the remediation tree were picked first. This ensured that the 60 percent of funding provided by Colorado’s Nonpoint Source Management Program 319 was justified and ultimately effective.
The ARSG received state, regional and federal awards for their collaborative accomplishments. The newly established fisheries in upper Mineral Creek and the headwaters of the Animas above Animas Forks are the result of proper characterization and strategic targeting to maximize measurable results.
What will success look like for EPA’s Superfund? If great public relations is used to measure success, EPA stands strong. But, if measurable improvements to water quality and aquatic habitat are important goals, then the EPA needs to put their money toward making major reductions in metal loading that can only be achieved by addressing the major draining mine sources located near Gladstone (i.e., Gold King, Red and Bonita, American Tunnel and the Mogul mines).
We can now expect greatly reduced funding available for the nation’s 1,300 Superfund sites. Instead of addressing the main problem, it appears the EPA’s present plans will focus on spending millions of dollars on scattered minor contributing sources that will not lead to quantifiable improvements.
Why waste resources on projects that were determined long ago to have minimal impact on water quality and whose remediation will not achieve measurable results? The Gladstone draining mines are where the problem lies and where significant achievements can be attained.
The EPA needs to redirect their funds from the less-significant “feel good” projects to those where measurable results can be achieved.
William Simon is a founding member of the Animas River Stakeholder Group and served as its coordinator from 1994-2012. Reach him at wsimon@frontier.net.
