Title: National Orphaned/Abandoned Mines Initiative (NAOMI)
Franšais
What's New
arrow Capacity Building
for a National Inventory of Orphanded/Abandoned Mines in Canada
(PDF)
arrow NOAMI News, May 2004 (PDF)
arrow NOAMI Activities, February 2004 (PDF)
Menu
arrow Table of Contents
arrow Introduction
arrow

Advisory Committee:
Mandate
Membership

arrow Task Groups:
Information Gathering
Community Involvement
Legislative and Institutional   Barriers to Collaboration
Funding Approaches
arrow Workshops:
Winnipeg Workshop
Legal and Institutional   Barriers to Collaboration   Relating to Orphaned/   Abandoned Mines Workshop
arrow Sign In - Meeting Minutes
arrow Newsletters
arrow

Reports

arrow Community Involvement Brochure (PDF)
arrow Related Links
arrow Contact Us
arrow Feedback Form
arrow Site Map
arrow Help
arrow Disclaimer
Spacer

Reports > Lessons Learned Table of Contents > Executive Summary
> Acknowledgements
> Introduction > Methods > Case Studies
> List of Lessons Learned > Recommendations > References

7.0 REFERENCES

AGRA Earth and Environmental Limited. July 1996. Report on Opportunities Relating to the Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage at Mt. Washington and the Restoration of the Tsolum River Watershed.

Ashford, N.A., Rest, K.M. March, 1999. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Ashford, N. Science and values in the regulatory process. Statistical Science. 3:377-383.

Bowles, Roy T. 1982. Little Communities and Big Industries. Butterworth and Co. (Canada) Ltd.

Bowles, Roy T. 1981. Social Impact Assessment in Small Communities, An Integrative Review of Selected Literature. Butterworth and Co. (Canada) Ltd.

Bowles, Roy T. 1980. Deloro and the World: The Local Manifestations of the Ontario Mineral Industry. Canadian Historical Association.

Bowles, Roy T. June 14, 1951. Deloro’s Great Expansion. The Marmora Herald.

Brandt, Father Charles A.E. August 1999. Mt. Washington Milling Co.: A Historical Outline.

Brandt, Father Charles A.E. Saving the Tsolum River. From BC Environmental Network web site (http://www.bcen.bc.ca/).

Campbell, Kathy. April 1999. State of the Tsolum River: A Comprehensive Report on Work Completed by the Tsolum River Task Force, April 1997-March 1999. Tsolum River Task Force.

Canadian Public Health Association. 1977. Task Force on Arsenic: Final Report.

Care Delivery Network Project. 1998. An Introduction to South Eastern Ontario: a demographic, socio-economic, health status and health services profile of Southeastern Ontario.

Top

Carter, Les. July 1995. Working Together for Healthy Watersheds. Report to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Congressional Research Report 94-464 ENR. May, 1994. Superfund Fact Book.

Deniseger, J., J. P. Collin, and A. R. Chapman. April 1995. Tsolum River Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives. Prepared for Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP).

Edelstein, M.R. 1988. Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Eden, S. 1996. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understand Sci. 5:193-204; 1989.

Engelbert, Bruce. May, 1999. Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement – EPA Superfund Response Staff Tell How Public Involvement Has Helped Clean Up Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C.

English, M.G., Feldman, D.L. and Tonn, B.E. December, 1993. Stakeholder Involvement: Open Processes for Reaching Decisions About the Future uses of Contaminated Sites. Knoxville, TN, Univ. of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education.

Fiorino, D.J. 1990. “Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms.” Science, Technology and Human Values. 15(2):226-243.

Fiorino, D.J. 1988. Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. 14:501-547.

GeoNorth. March 2002. Developing Options and Recommendation to Establish and Operate a Giant Mine Community Liaison Committee: Final Report. Prepared for Giant Mine Project Team, DIAND.

Kerr, Grenier, Andersen and April, Inc. July, 1999. Analysis and Evaluation of the EPA Common Sense Initiative. Prepared for the us Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. p. 42.

Livingston, Louise. June 21, 2002. Is the federal government yet another stumbling block? The Community Press, Eastern Edition.

Lutra Associates Ltd. January 2002. Awareness Testing: Findings from the Focus Groups on Giant Mine and the Arsenic Trioxide. Prepared for the Communications Directorate, DIAND, NWT Region.

Mellot, W. November, 1998. Formation of the Summitville Mine TAG: The TAG administrator’s perspective. us EPA web site (http://www.epa.gov/).

National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decision in a Democratic Society. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Top

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. March 2001. Fact Sheet, Multimedia Health Risk Assessment.

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. November 1999. Deloro Mine Site Cleanup Project Update.

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. July 1999. The Deloro Village Environmental Health Risk Study, Summary Report. PIBS 3794E.

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. July 1999. Deloro Environmental Health Risk Study, Questions and Answers.

Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. July 1999. In Brief, Cleaning Up The Deloro Mine Site.

O’Reilly, Kevin. April 2002. The Giant Mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada. Prepared for Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.

Peacekeeping Education Associates and People Development Ltd. May 30, 2002. The Big Picture – Where We Are Now. Joint Action Group web site (http://www.muggah.org).

People’s Health Commission. A Brief History of the Muggah Creek Watershed. (http://www.bethechange.ca/)

Renewable Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. June 1993. An Investigation of Atmospheric Emissions From the Royal Oak Giant Yellowknife Mine.

Sierra Legal Defence Fund. May 1998. Digging Up Trouble: The Legacy of Mining in British Columbia.

Sierra Club of British Columbia, Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia, and Taku Wilderness Association. September 8, 1999. Response to the Government of Canada to a Submission on Enforcement Matters Under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement of Environmental Cooperation.

SRK Consulting. May 2001. Study of Management Alternatives For Giant Mine Arsenic Trioxide Dust. Prepared for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Terriplan Consultants Ltd. And IER Planning, Research and Management Services. August 2001. Giant Mine Underground Arsenic Trioxide Management Alternatives Workshop: June 11-12, 2001, Yellowknife, NT. Prepared for DIAND.

Top

Tsolum River Task Force. August 26, 1997. Terms of Reference.

Tsolum River Restoration Society. May 14, 2002. Coordinator’s Report.

Turner, Larry. January 1988. An Historical Analysis of the Deloro Site. Ottawa: Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module: Introduction to Superfund Community Involvement. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July, 2000. Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council, Burlington, VT: Lessons Learned From This Region 1 Community Advisory Group. Office of the Regional Administrator, Region 1. Boston, MA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January, 2001. Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the us EPA – Lessons Learned, Barriers & Innovative Approaches. Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA web sites to download tool kits and case studies. Superfund Community Involvement (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/index.htm)
and EPA Public Involvement (http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/).

U.S. EPA. The Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers, Communities and Regulators. “New Bedford Harbor Superfund Community Forum: Progress without complete consensus.” Appendix 1 – Case Studies. (http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/appd1.pdf).

Walker, C.E. and J.R. MacLeod (ed). “Catalogue of Salmon Spawning Streams and Escapement Populations Statistical Area No. 14 Pacific Region.” Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Vancouver, BC. 1970.

Top

ENDNOTES

1Abandoned Mine Remediation: Increasing Community Involvement. CCSG Associates. Prepared for the National Orphaned/Abandoned Mine Working Group. 2002.
2 Ibid.
3 Turner, Larry. January 1988. An Historical Analysis of the Deloro Site. Ottawa: Commonwealth Historic Resource Management Ltd.
4 Bowles, Roy T. June 14, 1951. Deloro’s Great Expansion. The Marmora Herald.
5 Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, www/ene.gov.on.ca/envision/deloro.htm
6Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment. July 1999. In Brief, Cleaning Up The Deloro Mine Site.
7 Ibid.
8 Dr. Ray Farquharson. 1957. Professor of Medicine at Toronto University. Workers compensation claim records.
9 Shulman, Morton. 1974. Ontario Coroner.
10 Care Delivery Network Project. 1998. An Introduction to South Eastern Ontario: a demographic, socio-economic, health status and health services profile of Southeastern Ontario.
11 Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, www/ene.gov.on.ca/envision/deloro.htm
12 Louise Livingston. June 21, 2002. Is the federal government yet another stumbling block? The Community Press, Eastern Edition.
13 Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, www/ene.gov.on.ca/envision/deloro/liaisongroups.htm.
14 Ibid.
15MOEE comments, September 2002.

16Natural Resources Canada web site: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/gsc/mrd/extech3/giant_e.html,
“Exploration and Development of the Giant Mine.”
17Kevin O’Reilly, Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. “The Giant Mine in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, Canada.” April 2002.
18DIAND. Giant Mine Project. “Information: Frequently Asked Questions.” 2002.
19Lutra Associates Ltd. “Awareness Testing: Findings from the Focus Groups on Giant Mine and the Arsenic Trioxide.” Prepared for the Communications Directorate, DIAND, NWT Region. Jan. 2002, p. 5.
20 Ibid, p. i.
21 Ibid, p. i.
22 GeoNorth Limited. “Final Report for Developing Options and Recommendations to Establish and Operate a Giant Mine Community Liaison Committee.” Yellowknife, NWT. March 2002. Pp. 17.
23 Ibid, p. 17.
24 Ibid, p. ii.
25 Sierra Club of British Columbia, Environmental Mining Council of British Columbia, and Taku Wilderness Association. “Response to the Government of Canada to a Submission on Enforcement Matters Under Articles 14 and 15 of the North American Agreement of Environmental Cooperation.” Sept. 8, 1999.
26 State of the Tsolum River: A Comprehensive Report on Work Completed by the Tsolum River Task Force, April 1997-March 1999. Kathy Campbell. Tsolum River Task Force. April 1999, p. 5.
27 C.E. Walker and J.R. MacLeod (ed). “Catalogue of Salmon Spawning Streams and Escapement Populations Statistical Area No. 14 Pacific Region.” Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Vancouver, BC. 1970.
28 State of the Tsolum River, p. 5.
29 J. Deniseger, J.P. Collin, and A.R. Chapman. “Tsolum River Watershed Water Quality Assessment and Objectives:” Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), April 1995.
30 AGRA Earth and Environmental Limited, “Report on Opportunities Relating to the Remediation of Acid Mine Drainage at Mt. Washington and the Restoration of the Tsolum River Watershed, “ July 1996, p. 10.
31 The objectives proposed by Deniseger et al. (1995) apply to the entire length of the Tsolum River, with the exception of a 500 m mixing zone downstream of Murex Creek. Water quality objectives for copper are as follows: 30 day average of 0.007 mg/L dissolved Cu (based on at least 5 samples) and a maximum of 0.011 mg/L dissolved Cu (in a grab sample).
32Ibid, p. 10.
33 State of the Tsolum, p. 5.
34Les Carter. “Working Together for Healthy Watersheds.” Report to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. July 1995, p. 2.
35Ibid, p. 1.
36Tsolum River Task Force. “Terms of Reference.” August 26, 1997.
37 State of the Tsolum, p. 9.
38 Superfund Fact Book, Congressional Research Report 94-464 ENR, May, 1994. (http://cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/Waste/waste-1.cfm)
39 RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Training Module: Introduction to Superfund Community Involvement. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, us Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. (updated) 1998.
40 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement: EPA Superfund Response Staff Tell How Public Involvement Has Helped Clean Up Sites. Bruce Englebert. us Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. May, 1999.
Note: While not all Superfund sites are mine sites, the examples used reflect many of the same problems faced by mine site remediation, i.e., sites are technically complex, have various forms of contamination, present potential health concerns, involve a diversity of stakeholders, numerous government agencies are involved, and there may be no party willing or able to take financial responsibility for cleaning up the site.
41 See the following us EPA web sites to download tool kits and case studies. Superfund Community Involvement (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/community/index.htm)
and EPA Public Involvement (http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/).
42 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. Nicolas A. Ashford and Kathleen M. Rest. Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. March 1999. pp. IV-13.
43 D.J. Fiorino. “Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms.” Science, Technology and Human Values. 1990. 15(2):226-243. Understanding Risk: Informing Decision in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. 1996. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p.III-2)
44 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. p. III-6.
45 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement.
46 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement (Ed Als, EPA Region 2) “Early involvement makes a real difference at the Li Tungsten site” case study.
47 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement (Fred MacMillan, EPA Region 3, Palmerton case study)
48 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement (David Page, Department of Energy, EPA Region 4, Poplar Creek case study)
49 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement (Donn Walters, EPA Region 6 CIC for Hudson Refinery)
50 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement “East Fork Poplar Creek cleanup” case study.
51 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council, Burlington, VT: Lessons learned from this Region 1 Community Advisory Group. us Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Regional Administrator, Region 1. Boston, MA. July, 2000. p. 5.
52 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the us EPA – Lessons Learned, Barriers & Innovative Approaches. us Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Washington, D.C. January, 2001. p. 7.

Top


53 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-13.
54 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 4.
55 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement, “EPA dunking helps wash out community resistance.”
56 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-17.
57 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S.
58 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement, “Successful partnering with a community leader in Michigan City, Indiana.”
59 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-34.
60 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. p. 2.
61 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement, “Building ties to the community finally pays off in Los Angeles.”
62 E.g., the Design Review Committee in Albuquerque. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. VI-24.
63 The Constructive Engagement Resource Guide: Practical Advice for Dialogue Among Facilities, Workers, Communities and Regulators. “New Bedford Harbor Superfund Community Forum: Progress without complete consensus.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix 1 – Case Studies. (http://www.epa.gov/publicinvolvement/pdf/appd1.pdf).
64 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the us p.10.
65 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. I-2.
66 Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts of Residential Toxic Exposure. M.R. Edelstein (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). 1988. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities).
67Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, pp. III-2.
68 Understanding Risk: Informing Decision in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. 1996. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities).
69 S. Eden. “Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions,” Public Understand Sci. 1996. 5:193-204; Fiorino, D.J. “Environmental risk and democratic process: a critical review,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. 1989. 14:501-547. 1988; N. Ashford, “Science and values in the regulatory process.” Statistical Science. 3:377-383. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities)
70 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 5.
71 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 5.
72 For communities living near contaminated sites that are not part of the Superfnd program, U.S. communities can access similar grants through EPA’s Technical Outreach Services for Communities program. Information on both of these programs is available on EPA’s web site (http://www.epa.gov/).
73 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 5.
74 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. p. 4.
75 W. Mellot. “Formation of the Summitville Mine TAG: The TAG administrator’s perspective.” Nov., 1998. us Environmental Protection Agency web site (http://www.epa.gov/).
76 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 8.
77 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-37, 38, 42.
78 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. VI-2.
79 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. VI-3.
80 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. VI-5.
81 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 8.
82 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. III-10.
83Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-30.
84Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. VI-3.
85Stakeholder Involvement: Open Processes for Reaching Decisions
About the Future uses of Contaminated Sites. M.G. English, D.L. Feldman, and B.E. Tonn. Univ. of Tennessee, Waste Management Research and Education Institute, Knoxville, TN. December, 1993. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities).
86Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. p. I-3.
87 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-2.
88 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement, “Early involvement makes a real difference at the Li Tungsten Site.”
89 Understanding Risk: Informing Decision in a Democratic Society. National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. 1996. Framework for Environmental Risk Management. Final Report, Vol.2. Washington, D.C. 1997. (Cited in Public Participation in Contaminated Communities)
90 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp IV-22.
91 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. III-11.
92 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. pp. 5, 6.
93 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-37, 38, 42.
94 Stakeholder Involvement & Public Participation at the U.S. EPA. p. 8.
95 This occurred in Chatanooga Case Study. Public Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. III-11.
96 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. p. 5.
97 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement, “Building ties to the community finally pays off in Los Angeles.”
98 Participation in Contaminated Communities. pp. IV-55. This example deals with the contamination at an historic uranium processing site.
99 Lessons Learned About Superfund Community Involvement,” Fear mongering gives way to fact finding in Palmerton, Pennsylvania.”
100 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, pp. IV-54.
101 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, pp. IV-29.
102 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. p. 4, 5.
103 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. V-16.
104 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-36.
105 Public Participation in Contaminated Communities, p. IV-44.
106 Evaluation Report on the Pine Street Barge Canal Coordinating Council. p. 7.
107 Analysis and Evaluation of the EPA Common Sense Initiative. Kerr, Grenier, Andersen and April, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. July, 1999. p. 42.

 
Top
Franšais

Last updated: 2003-09-26

© National Orphaned/Abandoned Mines Initiative (NOAMI) 2004