Gogebic Mining Project and Wetland Mitigation Presented by: Jesse, Ashlee, and Jonny

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