You're right, I know very little about mining. But I would think that the process used to mine sand and to mine iron would be different.
My question was about the NEW BILL, where there will be changes to the rules that the mines currently must follow. So visiting a mine that was constructed to meet the OLD standards might not be a fair representation.
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/wisconsin/wi-mining-bill-summary.pdfChanges to regulations that could put our
resources at risk:
Removes Wetland Protections
–
Due to the high amount of moisture, particularly snow, that the areareceives there is a high
concentration of wetlands in this area.
•The bill removes protections for wetlands that are deemed Areas of Significant Natural Resource
Interest (ASNRI). These are wetlands that in the past could not be mitigated for due to their
high quality.
•The bill states that it is presumed that significant adverse impacts to wetlands will be necessary
and significantly reduces the DNR's ability to avoid and minimize impacts on the site.
•The bill significantly weakens wetland mitigation requirements by awarding a
minimum of 1credit for every acre of wetland “enhanced†in a mitigation bank. Current law awards between 0 and 1 credit based on the functional improvement of the wetland. This change would allow a
superficial enhancement of a wetland the same credit as a wetland that has been fully restored.
Deregulates Water Withdrawls
•The bill replaces the current standards for surface and ground water withdrawls. Current law
does not allow a withdrawal to cause significant environmental impact to a groundwater
protection area, such as trout streams and outstanding or exceptional resource waters. This bill
allows the withdrawals from an environmental impact point of view as long as they do not cause
significant adverse impacts on the Great Lakes or Upper Mississippi River Basin. A trout stream
in the area of the mine like Alder Creek comprises 15.4 square miles, while the Great Lakes Basin
is 295,000 square miles.
•The Department must issue a water withdrawal permit if it determines that the public benefits
resulting from the mining operation exceed any injury to public rights and interest in a body of
water, effectively removing any discretion by the DNR in issuing any withdrawal permit
Mining Waste Sites
–
These sites contain the overburden, tailings and waste rock created in the mining process. The
se sites are monitored closely under current law due to the threat they pose to water ways.
This rock can contain many harmful elements including mercury, asbestos and sulfuric acid and can
cause sedimentation issues for lakes, rivers and streams.
•The bill does not expressly authorize the DNR to monitor these sites, making detection,
corrections and enforcement very difficult.
•The DNR can require detailed inspections by the mining company but the bill eliminate the
requirement that the results be given to the Department.
•The bill removes the requirement to study the nature and the depth of the overburden. While
ferrous minerals don't react when exposed to air and water (unlike sulfite minerals) to create
acid drainage, minerals in the overburden very well could. The amount of overburden that
would be removed in a project in the Penokee Range would be far greater than the actual
ferrous rock that would be removed. Not knowing what is in the overburden would leave a lot
of the protection of our waterways imply up to chance.
•The bill would allow waste piles to be built taller, with 50% steeper slopes than current law, and
with a permit from the DNR allowing them to be constructed adjacent to or in flood plains and
shore land areas.
•The bill removes the requirement that high priority be given to selecting a design for waste sites
that minimizes the risk of environmental pollution.
•The bill allows waste sites to be placed in areas where the DNR has determined there is a
reasonable probability that the waste will result in a violation of surface and groundwater
standards.
