gogebic mining project and wetland mitigation presented by: jesse, ashlee, and jonny
TRANSCRIPT
Gogebic Mining Project and Wetland Mitigation
Presented by: Jesse, Ashlee, and Jonny
Outline
Background
Who is Gogebic?
Location & Importance
Type of mining: pro’s & con’s
Findings
Gogebic
Tribal
Economic/Political
Environmental
Recommendations
Alternatives
Mitigation
Conclusions
Background: Gogebic Taconite Mining Company
● Specialization: Specialize in Iron ore and low grade Taconite mining
● Affiliations: Cline Resource and Development Group (Chris Cline)
● Safety/environmental record: Still in development
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Cline#/media/File:Chris_Cline.jpghttp://www.sierraclub.org/wisconsin/issues/mininghttps://www.earthworksaction.org/files/pubs-others/IronMiningEnviroTrackRecord-201301-SC.pdfhttp://host.madison.com/proposed-mine-site/pdf_581b37f3-648f-5936-8235-f08a7a7aeb59.html
Cline has a net worth of $1.7 Billion, ranking 78th among America’s richest according to Forbes 2013.
Here is a block diagram illustrating the geometric relationship between Neoarchean, Paleoproterozoic and Mesoproterozoic rocks in the central part of the Gogebic iron range.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1730/pdf/PP1730.pdf
Gogebic mineral range:
Location ~
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1730/pdf/PP1730.pdfhttp://www.wisconsincentral.net/Culture/Culture/AshlandOreDocks.htmlIt is one of six major informally named iron ranges in the Lake Superior region and produced about 325 million tons of direct-shipping ore between 1887 and 1967.
Mining History ~
Local features ~
Background Continued:
Proposed mining Project:21 mi stretch (21,000 Acres)
● Implications of an open pit mine vs. Closed pit
http://media.jrn.com/documents/Iron-Mining-Review-011014.pdf
http://www.armz.ru/eng/uranium_mining/uranium_mining/open_pit_underground_mining/
● Issues of pollution and wetland destruction
● Jobs for local economy
● Decrease in Water quality
Water sources that would be affected:● Ashland/Iron counties, WI
● Bad River watershed in Northern WI
● Upstream of Bad River Indian reservation
● Very close to Chequamegon Bay
http://www.wisconsincentral.net/Culture/Culture/AshlandOreDocks.html
Wetland Acreage
●Emergent: 21
○ marsh, fen, swale, wet meadows
●Forested/Shrub: 1349
○ bogs, forested/woody swamps
●Pond: 5
○ shallow open water
Findings
Gogebic’s Concerns
Proposed 2 mines, 1000ft deep, spanning 4 miles wide
Bring 2,000+ construction jobs
Employ 700+ mining jobs
Goal is to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetlands
Gogebic’s Concerns cont.
Extremist anti-miners created unsafe working conditions
stalking site during night
Failed to pay $20,000 to Ashland county for land use
$100,000 deposit to Ashland county required for mining
EPA exercised executive power to limit gold and copper mining in the Bristol Bay watershed in Alaska
Withdrew mining proposal
Environmental restrictions
Increased permitting time from federal regulations
Not from decreasing taconite prices
Tribal Concerns
Penokee Hills Harvest Camp
Peaceful pow wows and educational outreach
Screen all campers to limit extreme protesters
Shift focus from jobs to water
Area is a protected, fragile system, home to endangered species
Plan to exercise treaty rights agreed on in 1800’s
Economic Concerns
Significantly higher unemployment than agriculture
Great Lakes region:
44% increase in poverty
63% of mining counties in “deep economic bust”
MN & MI:
Taconite prices declining
420 laid off in MN this year
Over 500 laid off in MI in 2012
MN legislation implemented to offset the impact of decreasing iron and steel prices
Political ConcernsWI DNR pressured Iron county to
take action against the Penokee Harvest Camp
Threatened county to revoke forest management
R-senator claims that the Harvest Camp permit is under dispute
Little communication between gov’t and tribes
Legislation passed in 2013, reducing environmental regulations
Environmental Concerns/RegulationsWetlands protected under federal, state, and county law
Wisconsin DNR mitigation options
Wetlands mitigation banks
In-lieu fee program
Permittee responsible mitigation
○ Army Corps of Engineers
■ 404 Permit (section 404 of Clean Water Act)
Endangered/threatened species and habitat protected under ESA
Canadian lynx, gray wolf, northern long eared bat, piping plover, rufa red knot
Hydrologic concerns
○ 5-10 mile continuous rift in water tables
○ Rift would span across 2 minor watersheds
○ Water movement between watersheds
Mining Process Pollutants
Tailings basins
Mg, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Co, Ni, Cu, Hg, Zn, Co, As, Cu, Ag, Au, Se, P
Ore Processing
Fossil fuel intensive
Asbestos
Mercury emissions from heat curing of taconite pellets
Acid Mine Drainage
Oxidized sulfate leached from mine
Mobilizes other metals
Lowers pH
Recommendations
AlternativeMultiple smaller mines
○ Less acreage destroyed
○ More manageable restoration timescale
○ Reduced risk of tailings basin malfunctions
○ Smaller hydrologic impacts
○ Lessened habitat fragmentation
Mitigation● Required by State, federal, and county law
● Recommended 2:1 replacement ratio (2750 acres : 1375 acres)
● Replacement of specific wetland types
● Preferably done within Upper Bad River and Tyler Fork watersheds
● Permittee responsible mitigation preferred
○In-lieu and mitigation bank credits also necessary
ConclusionWe concluded that, at this time, the proposition put forth by Gogebic
Mining was inadequate as to the amount of landscape alteration and potential water contamination that the open-mining project would lead to