Environmental Degradation at Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine ‐ A Cautionary Tale for Michigan Regulators Laura Gauger Duluth, MN October 2016
Credentials: • Laura Gauger is a pharmacist by trade who was living in northwestern Wisconsin in the 1990s when the Flambeau Mine was built near Ladysmith. She developed an interest in following developments at the mine site and has done numerous open records requests of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) over the past 15 years to obtain official documents and environmental monitoring reports for the mine. • Gauger co ‐ authored a 1200 ‐ page book about the Flambeau Mine that was published in 2007 and includes a detailed analysis of: (1) existing mining regulations impacting the project; and (2) how groundwater and surface water quality at the mine site fared under those regulations. • She was also an official party to three separate legal actions involving the Flambeau Mine, including a federal Clean Water Act lawsuit filed against the mine’s owner (Rio Tinto) in 2011 and concluded in 2014.
So what does the Flambeau Mine have to do with Aquila Resources’ Back Forty project?
Aquila and Flambeau consultant Stephen Donohue (Foth Infrastructure and Environment, Green Bay, WI) has been quoted as saying: “Flambeau was a very successful mining operation, and the two sites are very similar, so we’ve been able to use the engineering work done on Flambeau as a template for the Back Forty mine.” 1 1. Aquila Resources, Sep 22, 2016 (https://www.facebook.com/AquilaResources/)
In addition, here’s what Mr. Donohue told the Wisconsin Senate Select Committee on Mining at a hearing in September 2012: “Testing on groundwater around the Flambeau Mine site continues to show that groundwater is being protected at this project.” *Stephen Donohue is a mining consultant at Foth Infrastructure & Environment of Green Bay, Wisconsin. He and his colleagues at Foth were involved in the permitting, construction, operations and reclamation of the Flambeau Mine . Other projects include Aquila Resources’ Back Forty project and Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine Testimony posted online by Wisconsin Eye: in Michigan and PolyMet’s NorthMet project in Minnesota. http://www.wiseye.org/Video ‐ Archive/Event ‐ Detail/evhdid/6623
If Flambeau is to be used as a “template” for the Back Forty project, Michigan regulators and the public deserve to know the answer to these questions: What does the water quality data on file with the Wisconsin DNR for the Flambeau Mine really show? Were streams and groundwater reserves at the mine site protected?
First, consider this: Even if Mr. Donohue’s assertion about the water at Flambeau being protected were true, which it is not, comparing the Back Forty project to the Flambeau Mine is like comparing apples to oranges. Parameter Flambeau 1, 2 Back Forty 3 Size of Mine Pit 32 acres 83 acres Max depth = 225 ft Max depth = 750 ft Ore Production 1.9 million tons 12.5 million tons Waste Rock 8.6 million tons 54 million tons Production Tailings generated 0 11.8 million tons over 7 ‐ year life of mine from on ‐ site processing of ore There was no on ‐ site Toxic tailings will be generated from two processing of ore at different processes and in the following Flambeau. It was all amounts: shipped to Canada for • 1.8 million tons from an oxide process smelting, so there are no • 10 million tons from a flotation process tailings at Flambeau 1. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Flambeau Mine , Wisconsin DNR, Mar 1990, p. 5. 2. 1997 Backfilling Plan, Flambeau Mining Company, Mar 1997, p. ii. 3. Mining Permit Application for the Back Forty Project , Aquila Resources/Foth, Oct 2015, p. 4 and Table 5 ‐ 1.
Even if Flambeau were similar to the Back Forty project, Mr. Donohue’s assertion that the groundwater at Flambeau “is being protected” is false and misleading. Sure, there are some wells upgradient of backfilled mine pit that are clean, but not the wells that really matter – the ones in the line of flow from the backfilled pit to the Flambeau River.
Computer modeling for the Flambeau Mine supplied by Foth has proven to be very inaccurate in terms of predicting maximum levels of contaminants in the groundwater within the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit. Here are the numbers on file with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Contaminant Foth Max Reported Level, to date, now that real data has Prediction 1 started to come in 2 Manganese 550 mcg/l 42,000 mcg/l (76 times higher than Foth predicted) Iron 320 mcg/l 15,000 mcg/l (47 times higher than Foth predicted) Copper 14 mcg/l 810 mcg/l (58 times higher than Foth predicted) Sulfate 1,100 mg/l 2,400 mg/l (2 times higher than Foth predicted) 1. Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project , Foth, Dec 1989, p. 28 (L ‐ 30). 2. Flambeau Mining Company Annual Report , Jan 2016, Appendix A and Appendix B.
This schematic from a report on groundwater and surface water contamination at the Flambeau Mine site 1 shows where the various monitoring wells are located. Please note that: ‐ the MW ‐ 1013 nest is located within the backfilled mine pit, about 600 feet from the river; ‐ the MW ‐ 1014 nest is located within the backfilled mine pit, about 2300 feet from the river; ‐ MW ‐ 1000R and MW ‐ 1000PR are located directly between the backfilled pit and Flambeau River, within 175 feet of the river.
Here’s a graph of what some of the Real Flambeau data on file with the Wisconsin DNR shows: Manganese levels in groundwater at the Flambeau Mine are up to 180 times higher than they were before the mine was built and up to 75 times higher than predicted by Foth Engineering. And it’s not just one well that has gone high on manganese. Nine of the eleven wells within the backfilled Flambeau pit and/or directly between the pit and Flambeau River have GREATLY exceeded the Foth prediction for manganese.
Is the well shown on the previous slide (MW ‐ 1013B) the only well at the Flambeau Mine site with elevated manganese (Mn) levels? No. See the below table for a sampling of manganese levels recorded in all 8 of the wells within the backfilled mine pit AND 2 wells between the pit and Flambeau River. Note: This is Rio Tinto’s own data.
And it’s not just Manganese that has gotten out of control in some of the wells at the Flambeau Mine site. Sulfate levels in groundwater at the Flambeau Mine are up to 480 times higher than they were before the mine was built and up to 48 times higher than the accepted surface water standard for wild rice. And it’s not just one well that has gone high on sulfate. As of March 2016, nine of the eleven wells within the backfilled Flambeau pit and/or directly between the pit and Flambeau River are exceeding the 5 mg/l baseline value for sulfate by at least 15 times.
IRON levels at Flambeau are also of concern. Iron levels in groundwater at the Flambeau Mine are up to 300 times higher than they were before the mine was built and up to 45 times higher than predicted by Foth Engineering.
The Real data on file with the Wisconsin DNR also shows that Copper levels have shot up in some of the wells at Flambeau. Copper levels in groundwater at the Flambeau Mine are up to 70 times higher than they were before the mine was built and up to 55 times higher than predicted by Foth Engineering.
Wells outside of the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit and within 175 feet of the Flambeau River have also gone high on pollutants. Please see the following graphs.
Manganese Levels in Violation of Flambeau Mine Permit Standards MW ‐ 1000PR (a so ‐ called “Intervention Boundary Well” located directly between the backfilled mine pit and Flambeau River) has been in violation of the Flambeau Mine Permit standard for manganese on a consistent basis ever since the pit was backfilled in 1997, exceeding the permit standard set for the intervention boundary (550 mcg/l) by up to 10 times. This well is located just 125 feet from the Flambeau River and, according to Rio Tinto, the direction of groundwater flow is toward the river, through fractured bedrock.
Manganese Levels in Violation of Flambeau Mine Permit Standards MW ‐ 1000R (a so ‐ called “Intervention Boundary Well” located directly between the backfilled mine pit and Flambeau River) has been in violation of the Flambeau Mine Permit standard for manganese on a consistent basis ever since the well rebounded in 2010, exceeding the permit standard set for the intervention boundary (550 mcg/l) by up to 27 times. This well is located just 170 feet from the Flambeau River and, according to Rio Tinto, the direction of groundwater flow is toward the river, through fractured bedrock.
Statements made by Stephen Donohue that suggest the groundwater at Flambeau “is being protected” simply are not true.
But what about the Flambeau River and its tributaries? Are they being impacted by the Flambeau Mine?
Recommend
More recommend
