DOCSLIB.ORG

Interim Record of Decision Anaconda Copper Mine Site, Arimetco

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interim Record of Decision Anaconda Copper Mine Site, Arimetco INTERIM RECORD OF DECISION ANACONDA COPPER MINE SITE Arimetco Facilities Operable Unit 8 Heap Leach Pads and Fluids Management System Lyon County, Nevada July 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of the Interior Co-lead Agency Bureau of Land Management Region 9 Co-lead Agency 75 Hawthorne Street Nevada State Office San Francisco, California 94105-3901 1340 Financial Boulevard Reno, Nevada 89502 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Co-lead Agency 901 S. Stewart Street Carson City, Nevada 8970 Table of Contents ________________________________________________ List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. iv List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... v 1.0 The Declaration............................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Site Name and Location ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Assessment of Site ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Description of Selected Remedy .......................................................................................... 1-1 1.5 Planning and Implementation of Stormwater Management Actions at OU-8 Facilities Statutory Determinations ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Data Certification Checklist .................................................................................................. 1-3 1.7 Lead Agency and Supporting Agency Signatures ................................................................ 1-4 2.0 The Decision Summary ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Background .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Site Name, Location, and Brief Description ............................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Site History and Enforcement Activities ................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2.1 Site Mining History .................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2.2 Arimetco Operational History .................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2.3 Agency Involvement at the Site ................................................................. 2-3 2.1.2.4 Enforcement Actions and Interim Remedial Action Summary ................... 2-5 2.1.3 Community Participation .......................................................................................... 2-6 2.1.4 Scope and Role of the Response Action ................................................................. 2-9 2.1.5 Site Characteristics................................................................................................ 2-10 2.1.5.1 Physical Setting ...................................................................................... 2-11 2.1.5.2 Geology ................................................................................................... 2-12 2.1.5.3 Hydrogeology .......................................................................................... 2-13 2.1.5.4 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 2-13 2.1.5.5 Seismicity ................................................................................................ 2-13 2.1.5.6 Ecological Setting.................................................................................... 2-14 2.1.5.7 Potential Contamination Sources ............................................................ 2-14 2.1.6 Current and Potential Future Land and Resource Uses ........................................ 2-16 2.2 Summary of Site Risks ....................................................................................................... 2-17 2.2.1 Human Health Risk Summary ............................................................................... 2-19 2.2.1.1 Identification of Chemicals of Concern .................................................... 2-19 2.2.1.2 Exposure Assessment ............................................................................ 2-19 2.2.1.3 Toxicity Assessment ............................................................................... 2-21 2.2.1.4 Risk Characterization .............................................................................. 2-21 2.2.1.5 Uncertainty Analysis ................................................................................ 2-25 2.2.2 Summary of Ecological Risk Assessment ............................................................. 2-26 2.2.3 Risk Assessment Conclusions .............................................................................. 2-27 2.3 Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................................................ 2-27 ConcDP-\\seiconfps00\TechPubs\EPA\500683 Arimetco\ROD\F\170612 Anaconda_OU8_ROD final.doc 6.12.17 i June 2017 Table of Contents (continued) ______________________________________ 2.4 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 2-28 2.4.1 Remedy Components ............................................................................................ 2-29 2.4.1.1 Alternative 0 (FS Alternative 1), “No Action Alternative” .......................... 2-29 2.4.1.2 Alternative 1 (FS Alternative 2), “No Further Action Alternative” ............. 2-29 2.4.1.3 Alternative 2 (FS Alternative 6), “Passive Evaporation and Top Capping of HLPs” ...................................................................................................... 2-30 2.4.1.4 Alternative 3 (FS Alternative 8), “Passive Evaporation and Complete Capping of HLPs” .................................................................................... 2-33 2.4.1.5 Alternative 4 (FS Alternative 6a/8a), “Modified Evaporation, Complete Capping of HLPs, Upgrading Ponds, and Stormwater Management” ..... 2-35 2.4.2 Common Elements and Distinguishing Features of Each Alternative .................... 2-39 2.5 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-40 2.5.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment .................................... 2-41 2.5.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements .............. 2-43 2.5.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ............................................................ 2-46 2.5.4 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment ............................. 2-47 2.5.5 Short-term Effectiveness ....................................................................................... 2-47 2.5.6 Implementability .................................................................................................... 2-48 2.5.7 Cost ....................................................................................................................... 2-49 2.5.8 State Acceptance .................................................................................................. 2-49 2.5.9 Community Acceptance ......................................................................................... 2-49 2.6 Principal Threat Wastes ..................................................................................................... 2-50 2.7 Description of the Selected Remedy .................................................................................. 2-51 2.7.1 HLP Covers ........................................................................................................... 2-51 2.7.2 Upgrades to Drain-Down FMS Collection and Transfer Components ................... 2-52 2.7.3 Passive Evaporation Treatment of Drain-Down Fluids .......................................... 2-52 2.7.4 Fluids Management With Wildlife Deterrents ......................................................... 2-52 2.7.5 Upgrading of Evaporation Ponds ........................................................................... 2-52 2.7.6 Closure of the 4-Acre Pond ................................................................................... 2-52 2.7.7 Site Access and Land-Use Controls ...................................................................... 2-53 2.7.8 Stormwater Management System ......................................................................... 2-53 2.8 Summary of the Rationale for the Selected Remedy .......................................................... 2-54 2.8.1 Cost Estimate for the Selected Remedy ...............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of Montana Bulletin Bureau of Nines and Mintalluroy Series No
    UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA BULLETIN BUREAU OF NINES AND MINTALLUROY SERIES NO. 2 THE MONTANA STATE BUREAU OF MINES AND METALLURGY DIRECTORY MONTANA METAL AND COAL MINES STATE SCHOOL OF MINES BUTTE, MONTANA DECEMBER, 1919 STATE BUREAU OF MINES AND METALLURGY STAFF CLAPP, CHARLES H. Director and Geology PhD., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1910 ADAMI, ARTHUR E. Mining Engineer E. M., Montana State School of Mines, 1907 PULSIFER. H. B. - - - - - - - Metallurgy and Safety B. S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1903; C.E., Armour Institute of Technology, 1915; M. S., University of Chicago, 1918. FOREWORD The purpose of this bulletin is to serve as a directory of all the metal and coal mining companies in the State of Montana. Although every effort possible by correspondence was made in the attempt to get information on every mining company in Montana, it is possible that some companies have been overlooked. However, it is believed that this bulletin contains the names of most of the operating com- panies of the State, together with some general information on each company, and that the bulletin will serve as a valuable reference book for those interested in the mining industry. This bulletin is supple- mentary to a report on the various mining districts of Montana which is now being prepared by the Geological Department of the State Bureau of Mines and Metallurgy. —4— DIRECTORY OF MONTANA OPERATING METAL MINES ALICE GOLD AND SILVER MINING CO. Butte. Location: Summit Valley Mining District, Silver Bow County. Officers: Pres., John D. Ryan; Secy-Treas., D. B. Hennessy, 42 Broadway, New York, N.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle
    In The Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle In The Shadow of the Big Stack: Black Eagle. Martin, 384, 456, & Mildred (Amy) Black Eagle History Book Committee. Lillegard, 30-31, 310, 441, 479-482, 484, 511, 567, 575 Mary Lou, 31 ACM See Anaconda Copper Mining Co. Richard (Dick) & Lynette, 31 ADAMS Roland, 30, 429 David, 55 Ruth, 31 Donald & Delores Benedetti, 55 William, 31 Dr., 234, 236 AMERICAN SMELTING & REFINING Prohibition Federal Agent, 459 COMPANY OF GREAT FALLS Karen, 55 [aka old Silver Smelter], 8 AFRICA ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO., 6-22 Emigrants from Orange Free State, 197 Anaconda Zinc Plant, 22 ALAIR Black Smith Shop, 568 Harry, 578 Bowling Alley, 33 ALBANAS Cadmium Plant, 11 Mr., 478 Change Houses, 9 ALBERTINI Church, 474 Cheryl, 421 Copper Commando, 412 Dick, 455 Electrolytic Copper Refinery, 9-10 ALBRIGHT Employees Club, 14, 42 Kay, 375-377 Furnace Refinery, 9-10 ALDEN Great Falls Reduction Dept., 7 Janell, 73 History of, 511 Jody, 73 Klepetico Boarding House, 12 Wayne & Jo Anne Corr, 73 Laboratory, 9 ALINE Leaching Division, 11 Clotilda (Tillie), 214 Little Church, 13, 474 Enrico, 25, 269 Roasting Furnaces, 11 Gertrude, 267, 269 Rolling Mills, 9-10 Henry, 214 Safety Dept., 12, 221 Henry & Annie, 269 Shops, 9 Henry V., 214, 489 Smelter Hill Residential Area, 12-13, 64 Joe, 197, 331, 408 Smelter Stack, 22, 582 Sam, 214 Strikes, 14 ALLISON Tramming System, 11-12 Tex, 500 Unions and Strikes, 22 ALLAN Wire & Cable Plant, 8+, 36 Ada, 91 Wire Mill, 8+, 22 George & Veda, 91 Zinc Plant, 9-11 Jim & Kay Sanders Aragon, 91 ANDERSON ALLEN Alden K.
    [Show full text]
  • ACM Smelter Residential Soil Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Exposure to Lead and Arsenic in Surface Soil, Black Eagle Community ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY SMELTER AND REFINERY SITE GREAT FALLS, CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291599 SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation A health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partners to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR or ATSDR’s Cooperative Agreement Partner which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR Toll Free at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Exposure to Lead and Arsenic in Surface Soil, Black Eagle Community ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY SMELTER AND REFINERY SITE GREAT FALLS, CASCADE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291599 Prepared By: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Community Health Investigations Western Branch Table of Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Consultation
    Health Consultation Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 OCTOBER 19, 2007 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Health Consultation: A Note of Explanation An ATSDR health consultation is a verbal or written response from ATSDR to a specific request for information about health risks related to a specific site, a chemical release, or the presence of hazardous material. In order to prevent or mitigate exposures, a consultation may lead to specific actions, such as restricting use of or replacing water supplies; intensifying environmental sampling; restricting site access; or removing the contaminated material. In addition, consultations may recommend additional public health actions, such as conducting health surveillance activities to evaluate exposure or trends in adverse health outcomes; conducting biological indicators of exposure studies to assess exposure; and providing health education for health care providers and community members. This concludes the health consultation process for this site, unless additional information is obtained by ATSDR which, in the Agency’s opinion, indicates a need to revise or append the conclusions previously issued. You May Contact ATSDR TOLL FREE at 1-800-CDC-INFO or Visit our Home Page at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov HEALTH CONSULTATION Evaluation of Residential Soil Arsenic Action Level ANACONDA CO. SMELTER NPL SITE ANACONDA, DEER LODGE COUNTY, MONTANA EPA FACILITY ID: MTD093291656 Prepared By: US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Division of Health Assessment and Consultation Atlanta, Georgia 30333 Anaconda Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Miners, Managers, and Machines : Industrial Accidents And
    Miners, managers, and machines : industrial accidents and occupational disease in the Butte underground, 1880-1920 by Brian Lee Shovers A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History Montana State University © Copyright by Brian Lee Shovers (1987) Abstract: Between 1880 and 1920 Butte, Montana achieved world-class mining status for its copper production. At the same time, thousands of men succumbed to industrial accidents and contracted occupational disease in the Butte underground, making Butte mining significantly more dangerous than other industrial occupations of that era. Three major factors affected working conditions and worker safety in Butte: new mining technologies, corporate management, and worker attitude. The introduction of new mining technologies and corporate mine ownership after 1900 combined to create a sometimes dangerous dynamic between the miner and the work place in Butte. While technological advances in hoisting, tramming, lighting and ventilation generally improved underground working conditions, other technological adaptations such as the machine drill, increased the hazard of respiratory disease. In the end, the operational efficiencies associated with the new technologies could not alleviate the difficult problems of managing and supervising a highly independent, transient, and often inexperienced work force. With the beginning of the twentieth century and the consolidation of most of the major Butte mines under the corporate entity of Amalgamated Copper Company (later the Anaconda Copper Mining Company), conflict between worker and management above ground increased. At issue were wages, conditions, and a corporate reluctance to accept responsibility for occupational hazards. The new atmosphere of mistrust between miners and their supervisors provoked a defiant attitude towards the work place by workers which increased the potential for industrial accidents.
    [Show full text]
  • ANACONDA COMPANY HERITAGE Hardware, Lumber, Banking LARGEY Rolla Butcher BuE C
    Bu*e 1881 ANACONDA COMPANY HERITAGE Hardware, lumber, banking LARGEY Rolla Butcher Bu*e c. 1898 0ew York City: Bannack 1893- W. Farlin Walker Bros. Horsehair products Deer odge bank; Comstock ode ,tate ,avings Bank Dexter Mill Alice Mine Bu*e c. 1832 CLARK DALY 0evada- STANDARD OIL A.J. DAVIS LEWISOHNS (Metals) Travona Mine Bu*e 1839 18.2 Warehouse DIRECTORS Chas. E. & W. Colusa, 1839 M. Hickey Explosions 18.8 argey 0orth Bu*e Mining 1.12 Hearst, Haggin, et al. Meader Leonard mines Anaconda Mine First 0a4onal Bank murdered A Minnesota corp. Henry Rogers, C. 1832 1833 Colorado 1884 Washoe Copper Co. Anaconda Copper Co. 1881 William Rockefeller exington Mine ,.B. Water Co. 183. ,peculator Mining Co. 1.12 ,melter 1881 8rphan Girl Montana Copper Co. C.X.Larrabee 183. Anaconda ,melters, BA&5 Bu*e 0eversweat 1881 Workingmen’s 5ublic ibrary T.Cole Anaconda ,tandard 188. E1 million Union 1838 Mountain View Mining Rothschilds: 22% 18.2 Bluebird Mine 1882 Meader: Clark’s Colusa Granite Mtn Mining Co. ,ociDtD anonyme des Bell Mine 1.1. United 5arro* Co. Mountain Con 1883 mines de exington Bu*e Water Co. 18.1 (erde 1883 1881 HEINZE Boston & Montana Columbia Great Falls ,melter- Bu*e 188. Gardens Hennessey A.J. Davis (elder) died 18.1 Hydroelectric plant To B&M 1883 1888 Merc. 18.. HeinFe lease 1882 18.3 E121,111 Diamond Coke & Coal Amalgamated 18.. 1.11 Apex awsuits J. Tuohy c. 1882 18.2 East Bu*e 1.12-13 1.13 Great Balaklava Mine Bu*e & Boston Claims 1.13 Bu*e Water Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana's "Boodlers"
    MONTANA'S "BOODLERS": MONTANANS AND THE AFTERMATH OF THE 1899 SENATORIAL SCANDAL by WILLIAM J. YAEGER 'll*- Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation with Honors to the Department of History at Carroll College Helena, Montana March, 1983 3 5962 00083 098 Tv This thesis for honors recognition has been approved for the Department of History. Director x fko-. 1 . <1 Reader ^7^/ j>z /are Date ii CONTENTS PREFACE...................................................................................................... iv Chapter I. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO BRIBERY IN U.S. SENATORIAL ELECTIONS................................................................. 1 II. THE "WAR" THAT LED TO A SCANDAL.............................................. 6 III. THE BUYING OF A LEGISLATURE.................................................... 13 IV. THE CHANDLER HEARING: THE RESIGNATION AND REAPPOINTMENT OF W.A. CLARK................................................... 27 V. AFTERAFFECTS OF MONTANA'S SCANDAL OF 1899............................ 34 VI. CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... 40 APPENDIX A. THE VALEDICTORY OF SENATOR FRED WHITESIDE........................ 44 B. THE EVERETT BILL......................................................................... 47 SOURCES CONSULTED................................................................................... 51 i i i PREFACE As a newsman, I have had to endure accusations at various times that I (meaning my profession) had fabricated
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens United, Caperton, and the War of the Copper Kings Larry Howell Alexander Blewett I I School of Law at the University of Montana, [email protected]
    Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law Faculty Law Review Articles Faculty Publications 2012 Once Upon a Time in the West: Citizens United, Caperton, and the War of the Copper Kings Larry Howell Alexander Blewett I I School of Law at the University of Montana, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/faculty_lawreviews Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry Howell, Once Upon a Time in the West: Citizens United, Caperton, and the War of the Copper Kings , 73 Mont. L. Rev. 25 (2012), Available at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/faculty_lawreviews/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at The choS larly Forum @ Montana Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Law Review Articles by an authorized administrator of The choS larly Forum @ Montana Law. ARTICLES ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST: CITIZENS UNITED, CAPERTON, AND THE WAR OF THE COPPER KINGS Larry Howell* He is said to have bought legislaturesand judges as other men buy food and raiment. By his example he has so excused and so sweetened corruption that in Montana it no longer has an offensive smell. -Mark Twain' [T]he Copper Kings are a long time gone to their tombs. -District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock 2 I. INTRODUCTION Recognized by even its strong supporters as "one of the most divisive decisions" by the United States Supreme Court in years,3 Citizens United v. * Associate Professor, The University of Montana School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Statement Concerning...Copper and Lead Industries
    HEARINGS ON H. R. 2357 Before Subcommittee of the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE A STATEMENT pONCERNING SOME CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN THE COPPER AND LEAD INDUSTRIES By Everette Maclntyre, Federal Trade Commission INDEX Page Introduction 1 Discussion of acquisitions by each of a number of particular groups 7 Anac onda group 7 Kennecott group 18 Phelps Dodge group 25 American Smelting & Refining group 29 St. Joseph group 45 Bunker Hill group 47 Conclusion 47 GRAPHS Graph showing concentration of production of copper among three companies in the United States 4 Graph showing concentration of lead among four companies in the United States 6 CHARTS Anaconda group: Anaconda Copper Mining Co 9 International Smelting & Refining Co w 10 Amer1 can Brass Co 11 Anaconda Wire & Cable Co 12 Miscellaneous Companies of Anaconda Copper Mining Co 13 Kennecott group: Kennecott Copper Corp 20 Utah Copper Co 21 Chase Brass & Copper Co., Inc 22 Phelps Dodge group: Phelps Dodge Corp 26 Nichols Copper Co 27 American Smelting & Refining group: American Smelting & Refining Co 31 M. Guggenheim & Sons 32 American Smelters Securities Co 33 Companla Metalurgica, Mexico 34 General Cable Corp 35 Revere Copper & Brass, Inc 36 National Lead Co. (a consolidation of other companies) 37 United Lead Co 38 National Lead Co. '(acquisitions - general) 39 'St. Joseph group: St. Joseph Lead Co 46 Bunker Hill group: Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co 48 A STATEMENT CONCERNING SOME CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED IN THE COPPER AND LEAD INDUSTRIES Measured by importance of uses made, the commodities copper and lead are vital both to the war effort and to peacetime life not only in the United States, but also throughout the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 1953 Hungry Horse Dam Completed 1950 Great Falls Replaces Butte As
    FIGURE 20.1: Ford’s Drive-In, Great Falls, by Brian Morger, 1991 1956 1950–53 1953 1944 Congress passes Korean War Termination Congress enacts 1950 becomes offi cial Federal Highway Act the GI Bill Great Falls replaces Butte federal Indian 1955–75 as Montana’s largest city policy Vietnam War 1945 1950 1955 1953 1951 1955 1945 Hungry Horse Dam Williston Basin oil fi eld Open-pit mining World War II ends completed 1959 discovered in eastern Montana begins in Butte Anaconda Company 1953 sells its newspapers Montana’s fi rst television station 394 broadcasts from Butte READ TO FIND OUT: ■ How the nation’s largest economic boom affected Montana ■ Why the Anaconda Company dug the Berkeley Pit ■ Why more rural Montanans moved into town ■ How fear of communism affected everyday life The Big Picture The great economic boom after World War II brought modern conveniences and new anxieties—and shaped Montana into the place we know today. In the spring of 1945 a Sheridan County farm wife named Anna Dahl strode into the federal headquarters of the Rural Electrifi cation Administration in Washington, D.C. She plunked down a fi stful of paperwork: a federal loan application that would enable the peo- ple of Sheridan County to string power lines across the northeast corner of Montana. A year later 600 families in Sheridan, Roosevelt, and Daniels Counties could switch on a light and read in bed. Many changes swept across Montana in the years after World War II. Electricity lit up rural areas. Interstate highways threaded across the land.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Anaconda Edition
    Volume 7, Issue 1 cfwep.org A Publication of the Clark Fork Watershed Education Program July, 2019 AnacondaAnaconda Remediation and Mount Haggin Waste Voices from the Watershed: Restoration Update Management Area Anaconda Students Page 5 Page 10 Page 12 AnacondaThis is part two in our watershed series. For the Headwaters Edition Edition see cfwep.org/montana-steward A view of Mount Haggin and Anaconda from Stucky Ridge. Photo by Kayla Lappin. Ask Dr. A: What is the Origin of the Town of Anaconda Dr. Arlene Alvarado Located in southwest Montana in Deer Lodge the “copper kings,” founded the town for his soldier of the Civil War, was inspired by Valley at the foot of the Anaconda Range employees to work at the Washoe Smelter, Horace Greeley, who said, “go west, young (locally known as the Pintler’s), Anaconda is refining the copper ore extracted from man.” And westward Hickey headed, a small town, spanning just 737 square miles. Daly’s Anaconda Mine in Butte. In the mid- bringing with him another Greeley quote Presently, she is home to about 9,100 residents, 1890’s, Daly unsuccessfully campaigned to concerning the Civil War. Greely stated that a large town by Montana standards. Anaconda have Anaconda designated as Montana’s Union armies would “encircle Lee’s forces is rich in history, culture and personality, and state capital, losing out to William A. Clark, and crush them like a giant anaconda.” The is surrounded by beautiful natural areas like another copper king, who pushed to keep image of this awesome snake stayed with Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area Helena as the state capital.
    [Show full text]
  • Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site in Butte, Montana
    Building on Mining History: Cleanup, Reuse and Community Resilience at the Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Superfund Site www.epa.gov/aml/revital in Butte, Montana Introduction Dubbed the “the richest hill on earth,” Butte, Montana, had over 450 mines by the early twentieth century. Underground mining in Butte began in the 1870s. The chance to work in the mines lured workers from across the United States and Europe. Butte’s mines were known internationally for the technological innovations used to extract the ore from deep below the earth’s surface and the high quality of its workforce. In the early 1900s, Butte’s population soared to over 100,000. After 1918, copper production began to decline, triggering a population decrease that continued for decades. While adjusting to tough economic times, Butte The SilverSilver Bow Bow Cree Creek/Buttek/Butte Area SuperfundArea Superfund site is located site inis westernlocated Montana in western. It is residents also grappled with the challenge of living in a historical Montana.part of a larger It regionalis part cleanup of a largereffort addressing regional much cleanup of the Clarkeffort Fork addressing River mining landscape contaminated with mine waste. muchwatershed. of the The Clark Silver BowFork Creek/Butte River watershed. Area site includesThe Silver a large Bow portion Creek/Butte of Butte and nearby Walkerville. Area site includes a large portion of Butte and nearby Walkerville. In 1983, EPA listed the original Silver Bow Creek site as a Superfund site on EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL). This This case study explores key partnerships and collaborative tools area stretched from the creek’s headwaters in Butte to the Warm that have led to successful remediation and reuse of large parts of Springs Ponds near Anaconda, about 26 miles away.
    [Show full text]