Tailings Ponds - A Symbol of Desperation and Kissing Mining Company's Bottom, Line

After decades of green talk governments still let mining companies ruin ponds and lakes, killing life while saving them money. The latest ruckus is going on in Alaska, and the lake is home to trout that feeds First Nations people.

Hundreds of years ago First Nations stocked the pristine lake in the Chilcotin region with fish that have fed generations. Now Taseko Mines Ltd. of Vancouver wants to fill the trout-rich lake with waste from a proposed gold and copper mine. (Telegram Jan. 12)

In 2006 the use of two ponds in this province caused a bit of an uproar but it was too late for Duck Pond which was sacrificed to Aur Resources. Alternatives to using freshwater bodies are artificial tailings ponds. It worked for Louvicourt, Quebec, of which Aur Resources was 30% owner.

The bottom line for business is profit, no problem there. But when it comes to wrecking part of nature, it prompts a few questions about profit. How much profit is not enough profit? Actually, it applies to more than mining companies. The western world makes up about 20% of the world's population yet contributes 80% of the waste. Shouldn't there be more built in environmental responsibility when permitting a business that adds significant amounts of waste to landfills? In South Korea recycling is big, even the plastic straws have to be recycled.

Really, is taking a freshwater pond, that is home to trout, other aquatics, and well for birds, be the best we can expect out of industrial companies, or any business that produces great waste, for that matter? Is that as good as it gets? Sounds like someone is spoiled.

You will hear that not letting ponds to be used as dumps as not being friendly to business, or that it will drive business away. That is the threat that elected officials likely hear from mining officials. It is also printed quite often in major media. In the green age you would think that the old ways of natural destruction was coming to an end, but it appears that government can't seem to take the pacifiers away from some.

Letter to Protest the Mining Regulations Amendment Proposal

This is a letter you can send to the Federal Ministers for the Environment, and Fisheries & Oceans, the Federal Opposition for same, and the Provincial counterparts.

Dear Minister,

As a proud citizen of Newfoundland & Labrador’s natural beauty I ask that government take action to stop the plan by Environment Canada to change the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations, so that new mines will not be allowed use unspoiled fish-bearing ponds to dump their toxic waste. The proposed Schedule 2 amendment to the MMER would allow ANY mine in Canada to pollute new fresh water areas. In addition to being ethically and environmentally wrong, it is in violation of the Fisheries Act, Section 36, and could even open the door to have the Fisheries Act changed. That this amendment was proposed in the first place is alarming. If it were to be passed into law it will go down in history as a step back in time to when it was acceptable to contaminate precious ecosystems teeming with life. That idea is completely objectionable.

The mining company Aur Resources plan to use two fish bearing ponds in Central Newfoundland to dump their toxic mine tailings. This would set a precedent of restoring a bygone practice that had been abolished. Many more mining companies would be getting in line to also use pristine Canadian ponds for their tailings disposal. Newfoundland & Labrador and all other provinces need to preserve and nurture the ponds, lakes, aquatic and wildlife in our ecosystems, rather than pollute more of them for decades to come, while paying for clean up, maintenance and health problems possibly resulting from contaminated areas. It would be a loss for future generations and an abuse of our province simply for the benefits of a company’s short term gain.

There are alternatives for the Duck Pond mining project, but Aur Resources have not seriously considered them in the Environment Impact Statement. The proposed Schedule 2 amendment to the MMER should be retracted so that the Fisheries Act, Section 36 principle of not allowing "deleterious substances" into fish bearing ponds will be upheld.

As a concerned citizen I demand that Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries & Oceans take a stand which protects and preserves our environment. I want to send the message that our lakes and waterways are not open for business. I strongly urge you to intervene to stop the archaic Schedule 2 amendment from being law.

Sincerely Yours,

Copy:

Federal Environment Minister

The Honourable Rona Ambrose

The Honourable Loyola Hearn
Federal Minister, Fisheries and Oceans


The Hon. Bill Matthews

Federal Fisheries Critic

The Honourable Scott Brison

Federal Environment Critic

The Honourable Clyde Jackman

Environment Minister for Newfoundland & Labrador

Mr. Gerry Reid

Leader of the NL Official Opposition, and Fisheries and Aquaculture critic

Hon. Percy Barrett

Environment and Labour Critic for Newfoundland & Labrador

Quick Backgrounder: Environment Canada has proposed a change to the Metal Mining Effluents Regulations (MMER) which will allow mining companies to pollute unspoiled fish-bearing ponds to dump their toxic waste (currently illegal). This would mean that any pristine life-giving pond or lake in Canada could be contaminated. But this is not law yet, however, it could be unless government officials hear people's objections about this, then take action to see that it does not proceed, hence the letter.

For more background, please scroll down the page to read the May 21 & 26 posts.

Mining Regulation Change Threatens Ecosystems & Fisheries Act

If proposed amendments to the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER) are not retracted then any fresh water body in the province or the country could be polluted with toxic waste from mining. In other words, "deleterious substances" will be allowed to pollute fish-bearing waters which is contrary to Section 36 of the Fisheries Act. At the risk of over-using the word precedent, this proposed change, which is not yet law, would set a precedent for this practice to be more easily used at ANY minesite in Canada.

If ponds and fish habitats multiplied like the seal population there would be less reason for concern. However, what mining companies send into tailings ponds is not vitamin D. To use the iceberg analogy, often what we see and hear looks good on the surface but much of the potential harm lies under water, literally. Some dark consequences of using ponds for tailings are immediate and obvious, while other repercussions may be long term, and less apparent. Immediately, fish and their habitats can be destroyed, later, the food chain may be gradually contaminated. Who knows what percentage of health problems can be attributed to cumulative toxic build up in our bodies already? It has only been in the last couple of years that the public is kindly being saturated with helpful information on trans fats in foods. I think that many food companies thought that what we don't know, won't hurt them. Trans fat has been linked to 100's of thousands of deaths due to heart disease. Whether it's food or the environment, preventative measures seem like the best way to lessen the risk of health & environment problems.

Members of ENGO (Environmental Non-governmental Organizations) strongly oppose the Schedule 2 amendment. Here's what the proposed Schedule 2 Amendments will do:

- include a new definition of "tailings impoundment areas" (tailings are the valueless minerals & mining waste materials)
- will list two new water bodies in Central Newfoundland onto Schedule 2
- and will allow "new" mines to use natural water bodies - including fish-bearing water bodies - for the purpose of depositing tailings.

The new provisions will also require a company to prepare fish habitat compensation plans to support the DFO principle of "no net loss". That compensation would be most likely for some other area considered to be environmentally damaged.

Experts like Dr. Joseph Rasmussen, Dr. John Gibson, Dr. Catherine Coumans, agree with DFO that harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat will occur as a result of using fish-bearing water bodies as a tailings impoundment area.

From my communications with Mining Watch, ENGO and Mr. Chad Griffiths it appears that none of Aur Resources compensation plans, including those approved by DFO, are anywhere near scientifically adequate to show that "no net loss" of fish habitat will be achieved by the plans. As I mentioned in a previous blog, there does not apppear to be any evidence of serious consideration of alternative means to deal with mine effluents.

What are the environmental risks of zinc-copper tailings in ponds?

Loss of Habitat: due to acidic drainage that will occur as a result of dumping millions of tonnes of pyrite-rich mine wastes.

Potential degradation of riverine quality: resulting from hydrological impacts, combined with the toxic seepage into aquifers and surface waters of the Exploits Rever watershed.

Long term future of tailings ponds, environmental risks and liability issues. Acid-generating wastes must be kept underwater in order to minimize the rate of oxidation by Thiobacillus bacteria... the water levels in the tailings ponds must be maintained in perpetuity. This raises the question as to who is going to pay the costs of maintaining the dams that regulate these water levels.

What wildlife is sustained at Trout Pond?
Click this link for a detailed description of the aquatic and wildlife diversity in the Duck Pond area.

Personally I suspect that company economics is the reason why no serious consideration went into finding alternate tailings impoundment methods. If that is the case, then would it be more economical for Aur Resources to post a financial bond to maintain a freshwater pond for decades to come, as opposed to building a safer facility now? A report of the first man-made sub-aqueous tailings disposal at Louvicourt Mine was released in 2005. It stated that it was a success. Aur Resources was applauded in 1995 for its support of this innovation. In my humble opinion it seems like they could save themselves alot of financial and ethical grief by going with a more environmentally safe tailings management method.

One could also be suspicious that DFO and/or Environment Canada has been facilitating industrial development. Dr. Catherine Coumans wrote a background and history of the MMER in 2005. It appears that the MMER was originally protective of Section 36 of the Fisheries Act. However, the 2004 proposed amendments were seemingly rushed along. Environment Canada announced that the MMER review process would be sped up, because Aur Resources wanted to start a new copper lead zinc mine called the Duck Pond Project, using Trout Pond as a tailings dump as early as the summer of 2006.

Newfoundland & Labrador and Canada is dotted with ponds, lakes, and wetlands that may be conveniently close to new mining projects. Not only would a pleasant clean ecosystem be tarnished, but people's freedom now and in the future would be more restricted. It would mean less places where you could drink from, fish from, swim in, and enjoy wildlifes sights and sounds. But as Dr. John Gibson put it on CBCs Radio Noon show last week, how can you compensate for an evolving unique species once they're gone, or replicate their specific habitat? Efforts should be continued to plan a safe and non-polluting solution to the tailings impoundment controversy. That would be a good precedent. If a mining company dumped tailings in a pond near me, I'd be poisoned!

Mining Company Wants to Poison Two Ponds in Central Newfoundland

This story only caught my attention a few days ago, when Anne Budgell on CBC Radio (scroll down for the May 18 link) interviewed two guests about the Duck Pond mine development. Her guests were Dr. John Gibson, a retired biologist, and Chad Griffiths of the Trout Pond Action Group. Their information about the Duck Pond Mine project was very disturbing. Aur Resources (pronounced 'Oar') intends to use two fish bearing ponds to dump their toxic waste there, thus, destroying a trout and salmon habitat, and permanently ruining the ponds and other water areas with the acid remnants from copper and zinc mining. These ponds are located in central Newfoundland, joined to the Exploits river, and close to Buchans. Dr. Gibson said that there will be toxic run out from zinc and copper, and the acid waste will poison more brooks, Harpoon & Trout Brook, and Gill's Pond Brook. Dr. Gibson adds that zinc and copper are highly lethal and that the ponds will be poisoned in perpetuity.

Mining watchdog, miningwatch.ca says, "Alternatives to using the lakes for tailings (toxic waste from mining) disposal were never properly evaluated, and the plan to compensate for the destruction is inadequate."

According to Dr. Gibson, under the Fisheries Act, no toxic waste can be deposited into a fish bearing habitat. He made a great point as he described his objection to how Aur Resources thinks it's cheaper to use a pond as a dump.

Because if you were obliged to make a lake the size of Quidi Vidi, stock it with unique fish community, birds, plants, fur bearing creatures, etc., it wouldn't be done. And yet they think it's cheaper.

Chad Griffiths added that an artificial impoundment alternative was not mentioned in the Environmental Impact statement.

What's equally upsetting is that this seems to be slipping through with the quiet approval of the Dept. of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada (EC). When such a project is undertaken a proper environmental assessment is required, and all alternatives to using new ponds, i.e., ponds that have not previously been used for dumping toxins, have to be explored. This is one of the problems. There is an alternative to using pristine bodies of water to hold mining waste.

Located near Val d'Or, Quebec, the Louvicourt Mine has been in operation since 1994. Aur Resources was a 30% owner as well as mine manager. The decision was made to not destroy natural water bodies for mine waste disposal, but to create manmade structures, and it was "overall a successful endeavour."

Right now it seems that the only reason Aur Resources want to use Duck Pond and Trout Pond is pure greed, that is, it is more cost efficient. Meanwhile, the prices for copper and zinc are at a higher rate now than when the Duck Pond proposal was first put forward. I have yet to hear of a reason why besides saving a few bucks for the company, that an artificial containment facility cannot be constructed.

Another problem mentioned by Mining Watch Canada, Dr. Gibson and Chad Griffiths, is that the fish capacity study, mandated by DFO for Aur Resources to conduct on Trout Pond, was not carried out correctly. For example, testing on fish habitat was supposed to be done over a period of time after the late summer when temperatures are high. However, Aur Resources did a study for 10 days during the summer. This flawed study (see p. 4) was also applied to another pond. So the methodology was wrong, and yet DFO and EC are allowing Aur Resources to move forward with thier plan to ruin ponds in Central Newfoundland.

Yet another suspicious ommision from Aur Resource's plan is that they provide no evidence that a bond has been posted adequate to cover costs of perpetual monitoring of ground and surface waters around the mine and perpetual maintenance of the dams that will keep the toxic mine waste from contaminating the Exploits River system. - Mining Watch Canada

The mine will only operate for 6.3 years, but the maintainance of the mine and waste disposal area will be permanent.

Mining Watch Canada (MWC) is a pan-Canadian initiative supported by environmental, social justice, Aboriginal and labour organisations from across the country. MWC is currently participating, as a member of The Canadian Environmental Network (CEN), in a multistakeholder review of the Metal Mining Effluent Regulations (MMER). A revised regulations came into force in 2002 - following a 12 year review process - with a new appendix, Schedule 2, that was added at the very end of the review process. Schedule 2 identifies tailings impoundment areas. By being placed on Schedule 2 a natural water body is redefined as a tailings impoundment area. The new Schedule 2 would allow new ponds and lakes to be used as toxic dumps. Aur Resources can set a dangerous precedent by getting permission to add Duck & Trout Ponds to the Schedule 2.

Chad Griffiths described this action as a "significant and substantial change in Canadian Environment Policy." He goes on to say that this

lays the limbo bar relatively low for any mining company in Canada to say 'there's a pond relatively close to our operation .. so why not here?' It's a dangerous precedent.

In 2002, CEN representatives in the review process were assured that Schedule 2 would serve to deal with 'historic' cases in which lakes had been used as tailings impoundment as these mines would otherwise find themselves out of compliance with the regulation. Environment Canada and DFO officials have approved the inclusion of these two ponds onto Schedule 2 of the revised regulations.

Aur Resources and Canadian regulating authorities (Environment Canada, DFO) are statutorily obligated to seek alternatives to the destruction of fresh water bodies for industrial purposes.

According to Mining Watch, Aur Resources, the NL Dept. of Environment & Conservation, and DFO, did not do all they could to explore alternatives to the destruction of two ponds for mine waste disposal.

How will the ponds be polluted? AMD (Acid Mine Drainage) is the number one problem facing the mining industry in Canada. AMD occurs when sulphide-bearing minerals in rock are exposed to air and water, changing the sulphide to sulphuric acid. This acid dissolves heavy metals such as lead, zinc, copper, arsenic, cadminium, selenium and mercury into ground and surface water. Certain bacteria, naturally present, can significantly increase the rate of this reaction. - source: Mining Watch Canada

As alluded to earlier this is a dangerous and significant backward step in environmental protection and conservation. There are other mining companies already lining up to use the Schedule 2 to allow other pristine waters in different parts of Canada for toxic waste disposal (the Red Chris & Kemess North projects in BC, and the Wabush mine in Labrador). There will probably be more areas of Newfoundland & Labrador considered to be mining prospects. If the Duck Pond Mine precedent is set, then many other fish bearing ponds could be destroyed in the future. So is this really taking control of our resources, and not give aways? I don't think so. Our elected officials past and present should have demanded no less than the preservation of our land and water, and no further damage to new and previously untouched ponds and lakes.

It seemed like a bit of dark humour when Aur Resources used the innocent sounding Duck Pond Mine, to name their polluting mine. I would like to see people get work but not see Duck Pond's name changed to Dead Duck Pond in the near future.

We have a beautiful province and fresh water is one of the most valuable resources we have. As a citizen of this province I object to the way that this project is taking place. Jobs for people in the Buchans area are important, but Aur Resources can develop its mine but not to the detriment of our pristine environment. When they are gone in 7 years, they might be leaving behind a perpetual toxic mess for the people of our province to have to pay for and maintain. However, this does not have to be the case. They can use the alternative of a manmade containment structure to hold the waste, and at the same time, preserve our ponds, fish, wildlife, and provide people with employment. For my part I will write the NL Department of Environment, and contacts at Mining Watch Canada to add my protest to the way this mining project is being planned.

* Chad Griffiths (enviro@mun.ca) announced that there is a meeting on Wed., May 24, at the MUN University Centre, Rm. 2000.

Contacts

NL Dept. of Environment and Conservation
Minister Clyde Jackman, 729-2574
clydejackman@gov.nl.ca

Call the CBC Noon Line to voice your opinion on this, 576-5262. The toll free number is 1-866-576-5262 for long distance anywhere in North America.

Here are other contacts in case anyone is interested to send a message regarding this issue:

Patrick Finlay of Environment Canada, patrick.finlay@cc.gc.ca

Georgette Muller, PCO Policy Analyst, gmueller@pco-bcp.gc.ca

Joan Kuyek, Mining Watch Canada National Coordinator, joan@miningwatch.ca

Sarah Heiberg, Caucus Coordinator, Canadian Environmental Network, sarah@cen-rce.org