Lead Mine Waste In Our Ozark Streams?

[SilverMallard]

The following is copied from another website, but I have called my contact on the Water Protection Commission and he has verified this information. This will be decided by the legislature and eventually the governor. Every concerned citizen needs to contact Governor Blunt's office and your legislators ASAP and strongly condemn this proposal to lower our water quality standards so that lead mines can dump their waste into MO waters.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, and Missouri politicians
who promote the Lead Industry are proposing to allow WASTE WATER from the floors of lead mines to be PUMPED INTO THE TRIBUTARIES of Missouiri's Ozark Scenic Riverways (Current, Jacks Fork & Eleven Point). Mine water contains LEAD, ARSENIC, CADMIUM, MOTOR OIL, AMMONIUM NITRATE, AND UNTREATED SEWAGE. "All that good stuff that's great for water quality, the environment & your health".

Any actual mining in the Scenic Riverways could lower water tables as is happening now in the Viburnum, Missouri area. This could adversely affect springs and wells.

Secondary contact use means "diminished water quality".


Wading, fishing, floating, boating, canoeing, stream team activities, and such would be considered secondary contact uses.

Current whole body contact standards:

Fecal coliform 200 colonies/100 ml water
E Coli 126 colonies/100 ml water

"Secondary contact" standards "proposed" by Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the ?Clean Water? Commission:

Fecal coliform 1,800 colonies/100 ml water
E Coli 1,134 colonies/100 ml water

This is a nine fold increase in the number of "harmful bacteria" that would be allowed in the rivers! With 2,800 stream teams & an estimated 56,000 volunteers regularly wading and working in Missouris rivers & streams, such an incease in bacteria would put these people at risk, as well as anyone who uses the river for any recreational activity.

These "are" your rivers; they are "supposedly" National Scenic Riverways. Think the politicians & the big dogs of the lead industry will be out there paddling, fishing, swimming, camping, wading in them?

Contact : Marlene Kirchner
Clean Water Commission
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Mo. 65102

Contact: Bonnie Liscek
US EPA Region 7
901 N 5th Street
Kansas City, Mo. 66101

Contact: Missouri Department of Natural Resource

Here is the Forum that discusses this (Arkansas Canoe Club)
[url=http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com...7fd8c6462a:f6f0e]www.arkansascanoeclub.com...7fd8c6462a[/url:f6f0e]


------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[biot midge]

Ken,
I truly hope that this insanity will be stopped. The stream that I fished as a child and as a young man was ruined by water from lead and zinc mines. Before the mine water destroyed it, it was an excellent crappie, white bass, and catfish stream. Now, nothing can live in it. Even the weeds along the bank shriveled up and died! You may have heard of it. It is Tar Creek in northeastern Oklahoma, which is a tributary of the Neosho River, which empties into Grand Lake O' The Cherokees.
Steve


------------------
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went"-Will Rogers

[SilverMallard]

According to my contact with the MO Water Protection Commission, the only way to stop this is a HUGE public outcry. When I asked him if MDNR was actually endorsing this proposal he said, "Remember the Golden Rule? Whoever has the gold rules."

I wrote the Governor, my state rep, TU's President, and the head of MDNR today and expressed my absolute outrage at this proposal. I made it clear that my vote in the next elections will largely depend on their efforts to stop this proposal. And I asked TU to get involved. The Current and the Eleven Point both have stretches of Blue Ribbon trout water, which is wild trout habitat...a very rare commodity in MO.

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[SilverMallard]

The following is an excerpt from an email I received from Phil Schroeder with MDNR concerning the proposed rule changes. Note that he does not address the change in water quality standards directly.

"The proposed change that is raising concern is the removal of the overall prohibition on certain discharges within the watershed of a high quality water. The current rule allows for discharges from domestic (human sewage) wastewater treatment systems and mine dewatering. Therefore discharges from mine dewatering is already allowed under current rule. The current rule disallows discharges (including stormwater) from other activities such as sawmills, and aggregate (sand, gravel or limestone) processing. Instead a strict prohibition on these discharges, the department is proposing these discharges only be allowed when non-discharging options are infeasible, AND the discharge is minor, and therefore presents no likelihood of affecting the quality fo the protected streams. This will make all discharges subject to the same standards under the antidegradation rule.

The department is receiving comments that degradation might occur despite these strict requirements. Those that are commenting believe that insufficient means are in place to ensure that the regulated activities control their discharges to the maximum extent. The fear is that the department does not have the means to watch these activities closely enough. They want the added assurance of a prohibition of any discharge.

Taking the position of disallowing any discharge (no matter how minor) within the watersheds of high quality waters will have a significant impact on the local business and economy. However, at the same time, the economy of these regions of the state depend greatly on the recreation that is attracted to the quality environment. The balance between the social-economic and environmental issues seems to be achieved by imposing strict, yet reasonable restrictions on discharges. The use of the antidegradation rule instead of the strict prohibition seems to match that goal."

I'm posting this in the interest of fairness...to get both sides of the story. I plan to question Mr. Schroeder on the proposed changes in water quality standards as quoted in the original post on this thread. If he answers me directly, I will post his reply here.

****In his email, he also said that the public comment period ends on July 14th. So everyone needs to contact MDNR and voice your opposition immediately.****

------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[Fred Sanford]

I wrote the MDNR today and expressed my outrage to this nearsighted and completely ignorant proposal. And as I explained in my letter, these streams are not ours to spoil. Rather, they're ours to protect for future generations.

I would encourage anyone who has ever visited this special region, or who plans to, to e-mail the DNR per SilverMallard's instructions and let your opinions be known.

Thanks for letting us know about this so that we can speak up.

Fred Sanford

[SilverMallard]

Thanks, Fred! The following is the response I received from Mr. Schroeder regarding the original post on this thread, which he had not seen before I emailed it to him last night.
___________________________________________
"Thanks for the opportunity to respond to this notice. I had not seen it before now. It creates the perception that the proposed rules intend to lessen the protection on streams. That simply isn't correct.

I hope my previous email on the antidegradation requirements explains how protection will be continued on our high quality waters and their tributaries. Under the proposed rule, no discharge will be allowed to lower the quality of these waters as implied by the notice.

There may be other underlying issues resulting in the concerns expressed in the notice, such as the long-term implications of allowing the exploration for mineral deposits in the Viburnum area. These implications may reach far beyond just water quality issues and I can't address those. I can say that the changes in the water quality standards have no connection with these other issues and are solely focused on the need and importance of protecting the physical, chemical and biological integrity of our State's waterways. Again, the department will not permit any discharge that would jeopardize that integrity.

The notice is correct on the bacteria standards proposed for "secondary contact" activities. The standards are similar to what is found in other states for the protection of "secondary contact" recreation (that would include any activity that brings people in contact with the stream, but does not lead to ingestion of the water or inundation of a person's head, such as through swimming, snorkeling, skiing, etc.) The risk of bacterial or other pathenogenic ailments are less when the exposure is less , allowing for higher limits. The risk is minimized substantially for "secondary users" when the bacteria is limited at the levels described below. And, until now, streams with secondary contact activities did not have a bacterial standard. This rule establishes the first standard to minimize the risk to persons who who wade, fish, collect invertebrates, or in another way step into a stream for reasons other than swimming. And, the bacteria standard defaults to126 colonies per 100 milliliters on all classified streams to protect swimming unless shown it is shown through a Use Attainability Analysis to be too shallow for swimming (less than 1 meter deep at the deepest point within the stream, or less than one-half meter deep on average)."
__________________________________________
I am a bit confused. When I spoke to a key official who does not want to be named with the Water Protection Commission, he indicated to me that this proposal DID in fact include what he perceived to be a significant decrease in water quality standards and that, in his opinion, this was a matter of big business exerting strong political pressure on MDNR to get them to compromise protections now in place.


------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[SilverMallard]

I got this today from another source in Jefferson City. Read paragraph 3 carefully.
____________________________________________
EPA Permit for Alaska Gold Mine Sets Dangerous Precedent

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a permit last week that will allow the Coeur d'Alene mining company to discharge mining waste from a proposed gold mine into a lake in the Tongass National Forest near Berner's Bay in Southeast Alaska, paving the way for mining companies all over the country to follow suit.

Bonnie Gestring, field staff for EARTHWORKS told BushGreenwatch, "This is the first time since the Clean Water Act passed that the federal government has allowed 'tailings' [a form of mining waste] into a pristine lake, a significant departure from traditional public policy, setting a dangerous precedent for future mining developments."

The EPA permit was granted after a rule change to the Clean Water Act, pushed by the Bush Administration, which allows tailings -- waste rock and chemically-processed mine waste -- to be classified as "fill" rather than "waste." Environmentalists criticized the change as a backdoor attempt to circumvent a court ruling that found that mining waste in Appalachian mountain streams violates the Clean Water Act. [1]

Normally an impoundment facility is built near a mine to legally dispose of mining waste, a costly process that Coeur d'Alene wanted to avoid. The EPA rule change, however, means that Coeur d'Alene can dump tailings containing arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium and zinc into the nearby lake without violating the Clean Water Act. [2]

According to Gestring, "This decision blatantly contradicts the Clean Water Act's fundamental purpose, which is to prevent America's lakes, streams, and rivers from being turned into toxic waste dumps." [3]

According to the mining company's environmental review, the barrage of chemicals in the lake will likely exterminate the fish population, Coeur d'Arlene claims, however, that the population will re-emerge after mining activity ceases, within the next 12-15 years. Gestring, however, disputed the possibility of such a comeback, telling BushGreenwatch, "There is no historical precedent for a fish population returning after its habitat has been subjected to so many chemicals for such a long period of time."

Critics of the permit claim this is yet another example of EPA changing long-standing rules to accommodate industry interests. Kat Hall, a representative of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, told BushGreenwatch, "Instead of protecting Alaska's clean water, the EPA is sacrificing it for the profits of a mining company."

The federal government has deemed Berner's Bay and its surrounding lakes an "aquatic resource of national importance." The region is home to a variety of wildlife including, sea lions, humpback whales, four species of wild salmon, bald eagles, brown and black bears, and moose.



------------------
Fishing the Ozarks

[McManus]

Our Governor, the state Senate and the House of State Reps, are all of the same party, so: if we can simply get them to work together for the good of the state's environment; all will be well.

On second thought, I'll call the DNR, on the "envirnomental number" on their web site.

------------------
Swing hard, in case they throw the ball where you're swinging. Duke Snider

[McManus]

I sent an email this morning to the DNR at their address: oac@dnr.mo.gov

If you get a chance you might shoot them a note.

------------------
Swing hard, in case they throw the ball where you're swinging. Duke Snider

[McManus]

Movin' it up.

This is important!

Thanks,

Don

------------------
Swing hard, in case they throw the ball where you're swinging. Duke Snider