From: Carl Sack <carl@wnpj.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
To: "Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR" <Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov>
Larry,
Thank you for your thorough response. I appreciate how busy you are at this time.
I do have one follow-up question. Can you affirm that G-Tac's air emissions estimates on which you based your air permit decision are as rigorous and accurate as possible? I am no expert, but I have a hard time believing that the sort of hard rock blasting they may do would not produce enough dust to require some sort of regulation for the protection of employees, especially given the possible presence of asbestiform grunerite. Given the applicant's penchant for bending the truth as regards the local bedrock, I would hope you have triple-checked their figures and methodology.
Thank you.
-Carl
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR <Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov> wrote:
Carl – I apologize for the delay in providing additional follow-up, but the last week or so since my return to the office has been extremely busy. I have addressed your questions and comments below. My responses are in red font and follow your comments or observations
Also, Frank Koehn had requested that I send him a copy of my response to you. While I could do that, my preference would be for you to forward the response with Mr. Koehn rather than me sending it without having checked with you first to see if you are OK with sharing the information. So feel free to share my response with Mr. Koehn and anyone else that you would like.
As always, do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional clarification or if you have other questions.
Larry
Larry Lynch, P.G., Hydrogeologist
Bureau of Waste & Materials Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
phone: (608) 267-7553
fax: (608) 267-2768
e-mail: lawrence.lynch@wisconsin.gov
============================================
From: northlandiguana@gmail.com [mailto:northlandiguana@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carl Sack
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 11:11 PM
To: Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR
Cc: Coakley, Ann M - DNR
Subject: Re: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Larry,
Thank you for getting back to me so soon--over a holiday no less. Above and beyond. I admit that I did not see your Dec. 20 response letter before I wrote my comments, and I have since read it.
Also, I'm writing an article right now on the G-Tac situation (bulk sampling updates, Spain, Iron County, etc.) for a paper in Duluth. I'd like to quote your answer to my air emissions permit question. If this isn't okay for some reason, please let me know what I should put in print as the DNR's position on it (or yours).
Thanks again,
-Carl
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR <Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov> wrote:
Carl – I am out of the office until after New Year’s but I wanted to acknowledge your message and provide you an update of our review process. The Department continues to review the bulk sampling plan and also the application for coverage under the storm water permit. In fact, last Friday we sent two separate letters to the company requesting additional information and raising various concerns with specific aspects of the plans. I believe the information requested, particularly in regard to the storm water permit application, addresses many of the concerns outlined in your message. Links to the letters are below:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/gogebic/RevBulkSamplePlanDNRResponse20131220.pdf
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/gogebic/BulkSampleStormwaterAppDNRResponse20131220.p
The preliminary determination that the bulk sampling activity would qualify for an exemption under the air rules was based on estimates of emissions resulting from the proposed bulk sampling plan. The evaluation included both the non-blasting and blasting options as potential sources. Even with blasting, the estimated air emissions would fall below the permitting threshold established in the air regulations that apply statewide. The company must now submit a formal claim of exemption for the bulk sampling.
I will address your comments in another message after I return. n
Larry Lynch, P.G., Hydrogeologist
Bureau of Waste & Materials Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
phone: (608) 267-7553
fax: (608) 267-2768
e-mail: lawrence.lynch@wisconsin.gov
_____________________________________________________________
From: northlandiguana@gmail.com [mailto:northlandiguana@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carl Sack
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 12:39 PM
To: Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR
Cc: Coakley, Ann M - DNR
Subject: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Bulk Sampling Application Comments
To: Larry Lynch, WI DNR
Dear Mr. Lynch,
This is being posted publicly as an open letter. I urge you to share these comments with colleagues and halt G-Tac’s attempt to do bulk sampling with inadequate preparation and precautions in place.
I am writing to express my extreme concern with Gogebic Taconite’s bulk sampling plan and storm water permit application, as well as the DNR’s decision not to require an air quality permit. I will start with the permitting process itself, then address the decision not to require an air quality permit, and finally detail the problems that should kill G-Tac’s stormwater permit application.
Bulk Sample Plan Process
First as to the process, I understand that in accordance with Wisconsin Statutes 295.45(4), you have 30 days to determine the completeness of G-Tac’s stormwater permit application; since this was filed on December 2, the deadline to request more complete information is January 1. If the application is determined to be complete, according to 295.45(9) you have another 30 days from the time of this determination to approve or reject the permit, or until January 30 at the latest.
This timeline is completely unacceptable to interested members of the public that you serve. Gogebic Taconite’s Bulk Sampling Plan submitted on Nov. 25, 2013 is 246 pages long. The stormwater permit application submitted on Dec. 2 is 350 pages. It is certainly unreasonable to expect the general public to digest 596 pages of permitting documents in 60 days or less, especially given that the company’s Bulk Sampling proposal has drastically changed twice. Prior to the passage of Act 1, Prospecting (now called Bulk Sampling) required a full environmental review process with at least one public hearing and comment period. I understand that Act 1 was explicitly designed to curb public input into ferrous mining projects to the greatest extent possible; however, you still have leeway as professional state employees to make judgement calls as to whether the process allows you and the public fair time to evaluate the company’s proposal. During the debates on AB426 and Act 1, the bill’s supporters and G-Tac representatives repeatedly stated that if you, the DNR professionals, could not in good conscience make a determination in the given time frame, you had the flexibility to deny the permit. Now would be the time to invoke their advice: please deny G-Tac’s stormwater permit, if for no other reason than to give the public time to fully understand and evaluate what they are proposing.
The department will comply with the specified timeframes in the statutes. As you correctly summarized, we have 30 days in which to identify whether the application is complete. The December 20, 2013 letter regarding the storm water permit application essentially identified information that is necessary in order for the application to be considered complete. The application will not be considered complete until we have adequate responses to the issues identified in that letter. We will review the company’s response and determine whether the application should be deemed complete. Once we have a complete application, Department staff should be able to reach a decision on the storm water permit application within the 30-day time period specified by law.
Further, the nature of the documents submitted by the company seems designed to obscure the vital information contained within them. It is important to communicate the information contained in these documents to the public, as that information may have significant implecations for the environment and public health. The bulk of the content submitted is superfluous to understanding the gist of G-Tac’s methodology and conclusions. Therefore, a summary document consisting of the most relevant pieces of the Bulk Sample Plan and stormwater permit application along with a few basic maps and graphics should be prepared by the company for public consumption as a requirement before any permits for bulk sampling may be approved.
We have no authority to require a summary document of the bulk sampling plan nor the storm water permit application in order to facilitate review by the general public. Permitting documents and certain environmental review documents to be submitted in the future will by necessity be technical in nature. The environmental impact statement to be prepared for the potential mining project is a public disclosure document and will, to some extent, synthesize the complex and comprehensive data and analyses submitted as part of the various permitting documents. That is one of the key functions of an EIS – to break down and summarize technical information for the public and various decision-makers.
Air Quality Permits and Asbestiform Grunerite
Secondly, I am disappointed with the DNR’s decision not to require an air quality permit from G-Tac given the documented presence of asbestiform grunerite in the mineral deposits the company intends to exploit. I urge you to reconsider this decision. I understand that G-Tac no longer intends to use their Sites 3 and 4, where samples of asbestiform grunerite were found by two independent scientists. In a public forum in Iron County on December 5 (see video at http://www.indiancountrynews.com/index.php/tv/indian-country-tv-com/13949-live-from-the-penokees-grunerite-and-penkee-geology), Northland College geologist Dr. Tom Fitz pointed out that just because asbestiform grunerite has not yet been found at the other Bulk Sampling sites does not mean that it is not present in those places or others on the eastern side of the mine site. Fitz cited the 1929 report by Henry R. Aldrich, “The Geology of the Gogebic Iron Range of Wisconsin,” which identifies grunerite as present in outcrops along the Tyler Forks River, on the far east end of the mine site and close to G-Tac’s Bulk Sample Site 5.
G-Tac’s continued claim that “asbestiform material is unlikely to be present in the reserve” (Nov. 25 G-Tac letter to DNR, page 1) in the face of overwhelming confirmation of its presence by yourself, Dr. Fitz, and UW-Madison geoscientist Dr. Joseph Skulan, in and of itself, should trigger denial of any permits for bulk sampling on the basis that the applicant has knowingly provided objectively false information in their application materials. If any permits are granted, they will be granted upon the basis of a lie. Further, while G-Tac states that blasting will not be “the primary method for collecting a bulk sample,” blasting would be employed if enough material is not found on the surface at each bulk sampling site, potentially resulting in the emission of asbestiform particles if grunerite is in fact present at the sites. Further, the applicant states that “dust control measures will not occur for the blasting activity” should it take place (page 23). This decision in advance to not control dust that may be laden with asbestiform fibers is shocking and irresponsible, particularly in light of the company’s public statements of concern for the safety of their workers used to justify legislation closing the area to the public during bulk sampling activity.
From my personal visits to all three intended bulk sample sites, I highly doubt that the company would be able to pull 800 tons of surface material from Site 2, and it may or may not be possible at Sites 1 and 5. Remember also that these are U.S. Steel’s leftovers—i.e., what they didn’t want or didn’t think was useful, and therefore may not be adequate for G-Tac’s pilot plant testing even if there is enough quantity.
In light of these facts, please inform me as to the justification for not requiring an air quality permit for G-Tac’s bulk sampling.
As I indicated in my earlier response, the preliminary determination that the bulk sampling activity would qualify for an exemption is based on review of the estimated particulate emissions related to bulk sampling. Our air management staff evaluated the emission estimates in the context of the regulatory requirements specified in their administrative codes which apply statewide and determined that the particulate emissions from bulk sampling fell below the threshold that would trigger the need for an air pollution control permit. Further, this evaluation considered both blasting and non-blasting options for bulk sampling.
Comments on Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Third, I will do my best to make some informed comments on G-Tac’s Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application. These comments should be considered preliminary because, as stated previously, as a busy working person it is difficult to find time to get through nearly 600 pages of material within the DNR’s alotted time frame.
The first and most obvious part of the Bulk Sample Plan submitted on November 25 is the cover letter, in which G-Tac puts forward a few dubious claims. In addition to their denial of the presence of asbestiform grunerite cited above, the company claims that “no groundwater has been identified at the bulk sample sites” (item 12). It appears this claim is a response to your letter to Timothy Myers dated July 2, in the first item of which you ask, “Are any of the sites deep enough to intercept groundwater and if so, how will water such water be handled?” However, anyone familiar with the area in which bulk sampling will occur knows how wet it is and how close to the surface the water table lies. The applicant indicates on page 25 that their judgement that there is no groundwater rests solely on visual inspections of the surface at each site, and they did not even attempt to find the groundwater elevation at each site. They should be required to do so before making any claims about the presence or absence of groundwater. As you are aware, groundwater was intercepted at G-Tac’s test drilling sites over the summer (2013) quite close to the surface, so close that at one site the groundwater bubbled to the surface beside an improperly capped well for several weeks after drilling was completed.
The storm water permit, if issued, will cover control of water running onto and draining from the bulk sampling sites. Details regarding such control measures are contained in the application and additional details were requested in the DNR letter of December 20, 2013.
On the Stormwater Permit Application, G-Tac makes a claim on Page 8 (Attachment A - Construction Erosion and Sediment Control) that “no local agency has authority to review” their stormwater permit plan. In fact, Iron County has in place a Ferrous Metallic Mineral Bulk Sampling ordinance (http://www.co.iron.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=13742&locid=180) requiring a conditional use permit for bulk sampling activity, which stipulates that impacts to surface water are to be considered in the decision of whether to grant the permit (Section H(5)). G-Tac must therefore have a determination from Iron County that they are in compliance with the county’s ordinance before the DNR can make a permit decision.
The statement from the storm water permit application relates solely to the storm water permit application. Section 295.45(3m) essentially provides that DNR can issue the storm water permit regardless of whether there is a local storm water ordinance in place. It does not affect the ability of a local unit of government to impose other requirements on bulk sampling operations. As you stated, Iron County does have a bulk sampling ordinance and the company will need to obtain approval under that ordinance. DNR can issue its approval (in this case, coverage under the storm water permit) before action on the local approval but the company cannot proceed until they satisfy the local requirements.
Also in the stormwater permit application and bulk sampling plan, G-Tac stipulates that they will use straw bales as erosion barriers. These bales were used during the company’s exploratory drilling, and imported invasive grasses into the sites where they were placed (I previously sent you photos of this, and am happy to re-send the photos should you have need of them).
Carl Sack
Jan 13 (5 days ago)
to me
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carl Sack <carl@wnpj.org>
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
To: "Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR" <Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov>
Larry,
Thank you for your thorough response. I appreciate how busy you are at this time.
I do have one follow-up question. Can you affirm that G-Tac's air emissions estimates on which you based your air permit decision are as rigorous and accurate as possible? I am no expert, but I have a hard time believing that the sort of hard rock blasting they may do would not produce enough dust to require some sort of regulation for the protection of employees, especially given the possible presence of asbestiform grunerite. Given the applicant's penchant for bending the truth as regards the local bedrock, I would hope you have triple-checked their figures and methodology.
Thank you.
-Carl
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR<Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov> wrote:
Carl – I apologize for the delay in providing additional follow-up, but the last week or so since my return to the office has been extremely busy. I have addressed your questions and comments below. My responses are in red font and follow your comments or observations.
Also, Frank Koehn had requested that I send him a copy of my response to you. While I could do that, my preference would be for you to forward the response with Mr. Koehn rather than me sending it without having checked with you first to see if you are OK with sharing the information. So feel free to share my response with Mr. Koehn and anyone else that you would like.
As always, do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional clarification or if you have other questions. Larry
Larry Lynch, P.G., Hydrogeologist
Bureau of Waste & Materials Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
phone: (608) 267-7553
fax: (608) 267-2768
e-mail: lawrence.lynch@wisconsin.gov
We are committed to service excellence. Click here to evaluate how I did.
----------------------------------------
From: northlandiguana@gmail.com [mailto:northlandiguana@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carl Sack
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 11:11 PM
To: Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR
Cc: Coakley, Ann M - DNR
Subject:
Re: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Larry,
Thank you for getting back to me so soon--over a holiday no less. Above and beyond. I admit that I did not see your Dec. 20 response letter before I wrote my comments, and I have since read it.
Also, I'm writing an article right now on the G-Tac situation (bulk sampling updates, Spain, Iron County, etc.) for a paper in Duluth. I'd like to quote your answer to my air emissions permit question. If this isn't okay for some reason, please let me know what I should put in print as the DNR's position on it (or yours).
Thanks again,
-Carl
-----------------------------------------------
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR <Lawrence.Lynch@wisconsin.gov> wrote:
Carl – I am out of the office until after New Year’s but I wanted to acknowledge your message and provide you an update of our review process. The Department continues to review the bulk sampling plan and also the application for coverage under the storm water permit. In fact, last Friday we sent two separate letters to the company requesting additional information and raising various concerns with specific aspects of the plans. I believe the information requested, particularly in regard to the storm water permit application, addresses many of the concerns outlined in your message. Links to the letters are below:
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/gogebic/RevBulkSamplePlanDNRResponse20131220.pdf
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Mines/documents/gogebic/BulkSampleStormwaterAppDNRResponse20131220.pdf
The preliminary determination that the bulk sampling activity would qualify for an exemption under the air rules was based on estimates of emissions resulting from the proposed bulk sampling plan. The evaluation included both the non-blasting and blasting options as potential sources. Even with blasting, the estimated air emissions would fall below the permitting threshold established in the air regulations that apply statewide. The company must now submit a formal claim of exemption for the bulk sampling.
I will address your comments in another message after I return. n
Larry Lynch, P.G., Hydrogeologist
Bureau of Waste & Materials Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
phone: (608) 267-7553
fax: (608) 267-2768
e-mail: lawrence.lynch@wisconsin.gov
We are committed to service excellence. Click here to evaluate how I did.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From: northlandiguana@gmail.com [mailto:northlandiguana@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Carl Sack
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 12:39 PM
To: Lynch, Lawrence J - DNR
Cc: Coakley, Ann M - DNR
Subject: Comments on G-Tac Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Bulk Sampling Application Comments
To: Larry Lynch, WI DNR
Dear Mr. Lynch,
This is being posted publicly as an open letter. I urge you to share these comments with colleagues and halt G-Tac’s attempt to do bulk sampling with inadequate preparation and precautions in place.
I am writing to express my extreme concern with Gogebic Taconite’s bulk sampling plan and storm water permit application, as well as the DNR’s decision not to require an air quality permit. I will start with the permitting process itself, then address the decision not to require an air quality permit, and finally detail the problems that should kill G-Tac’s stormwater permit application.
Bulk Sample Plan Process
First as to the process, I understand that in accordance with Wisconsin Statutes 295.45(4), you have 30 days to determine the completeness of G-Tac’s stormwater permit application; since this was filed on December 2, the deadline to request more complete information is January 1. If the application is determined to be complete, according to 295.45(9) you have another 30 days from the time of this determination to approve or reject the permit, or until January 30 at the latest.
This timeline is completely unacceptable to interested members of the public that you serve. Gogebic Taconite’s Bulk Sampling Plan submitted on Nov. 25, 2013 is 246 pages long. The stormwater permit application submitted on Dec. 2 is 350 pages. It is certainly unreasonable to expect the general public to digest 596 pages of permitting documents in 60 days or less, especially given that the company’s Bulk Sampling proposal has drastically changed twice. Prior to the passage of Act 1, Prospecting (now called Bulk Sampling) required a full environmental review process with at least one public hearing and comment period. I understand that Act 1 was explicitly designed to curb public input into ferrous mining projects to the greatest extent possible; however, you still have leeway as professional state employees to make judgement calls as to whether the process allows you and the public fair time to evaluate the company’s proposal. During the debates on AB426 and Act 1, the bill’s supporters and G-Tac representatives repeatedly stated that if you, the DNR professionals, could not in good conscience make a determination in the given time frame, you had the flexibility to deny the permit. Now would be the time to invoke their advice: please deny G-Tac’s stormwater permit, if for no other reason than to give the public time to fully understand and evaluate what they are proposing.
The department will comply with the specified timeframes in the statutes. As you correctly summarized, we have 30 days in which to identify whether the application is complete. The December 20, 2013 letter regarding the storm water permit application essentially identified information that is necessary in order for the application to be considered complete. The application will not be considered complete until we have adequate responses to the issues identified in that letter. We will review the company’s response and determine whether the application should be deemed complete. Once we have a complete application, Department staff should be able to reach a decision on the storm water permit application within the 30-day time period specified by law.
Further, the nature of the documents submitted by the company seems designed to obscure the vital information contained within them. It is important to communicate the information contained in these documents to the public, as that information may have significant implecations for the environment and public health. The bulk of the content submitted is superfluous to understanding the gist of G-Tac’s methodology and conclusions. Therefore, a summary document consisting of the most relevant pieces of the Bulk Sample Plan and stormwater permit application along with a few basic maps and graphics should be prepared by the company for public consumption as a requirement before any permits for bulk sampling may be approved.
We have no authority to require a summary document of the bulk sampling plan nor the storm water permit application in order to facilitate review by the general public. Permitting documents and certain environmental review documents to be submitted in the future will by necessity be technical in nature. The environmental impact statement to be prepared for the potential mining project is a public disclosure document and will, to some extent, synthesize the complex and comprehensive data and analyses submitted as part of the various permitting documents. That is one of the key functions of an EIS – to break down and summarize technical information for the public and various decision-makers.
Air Quality Permits and Asbestiform Grunerite
Secondly, I am disappointed with the DNR’s decision not to require an air quality permit from G-Tac given the documented presence of asbestiform grunerite in the mineral deposits the company intends to exploit. I urge you to reconsider this decision. I understand that G-Tac no longer intends to use their Sites 3 and 4, where samples of asbestiform grunerite were found by two independent scientists. In a public forum in Iron County on December 5 (see video athttp://www.indiancountrynews.com/index.php/tv/indian-country-tv-com/13949-live-from-the-penokees-grunerite-and-penkee-geology), Northland College geologist Dr. Tom Fitz pointed out that just because asbestiform grunerite has not yet been found at the other Bulk Sampling sites does not mean that it is not present in those places or others on the eastern side of the mine site. Fitz cited the 1929 report by Henry R. Aldrich, “The Geology of the Gogebic Iron Range of Wisconsin,” which identifies grunerite as present in outcrops along the Tyler Forks River, on the far east end of the mine site and close to G-Tac’s Bulk Sample Site 5.
G-Tac’s continued claim that “asbestiform material is unlikely to be present in the reserve” (Nov. 25 G-Tac letter to DNR, page 1) in the face of overwhelming confirmation of its presence by yourself, Dr. Fitz, and UW-Madison geoscientist Dr. Joseph Skulan, in and of itself, should trigger denial of any permits for bulk sampling on the basis that the applicant has knowingly provided objectively false information in their application materials. If any permits are granted, they will be granted upon the basis of a lie. Further, while G-Tac states that blasting will not be “the primary method for collecting a bulk sample,” blasting would be employed if enough material is not found on the surface at each bulk sampling site, potentially resulting in the emission of asbestiform particles if grunerite is in fact present at the sites. Further, the applicant states that “dust control measures will not occur for the blasting activity” should it take place (page 23). This decision in advance to not control dust that may be laden with asbestiform fibers is shocking and irresponsible, particularly in light of the company’s public statements of concern for the safety of their workers used to justify legislation closing the area to the public during bulk sampling activity.
From my personal visits to all three intended bulk sample sites, I highly doubt that the company would be able to pull 800 tons of surface material from Site 2, and it may or may not be possible at Sites 1 and 5. Remember also that these are U.S. Steel’s leftovers—i.e., what they didn’t want or didn’t think was useful, and therefore may not be adequate for G-Tac’s pilot plant testing even if there is enough quantity.
In light of these facts, please inform me as to the justification for not requiring an air quality permit for G-Tac’s bulk sampling.
As I indicated in my earlier response, the preliminary determination that the bulk sampling activity would qualify for an exemption is based on review of the estimated particulate emissions related to bulk sampling. Our air management staff evaluated the emission estimates in the context of the regulatory requirements specified in their administrative codes which apply statewide and determined that the particulate emissions from bulk sampling fell below the threshold that would trigger the need for an air pollution control permit. Further, this evaluation considered both blasting and non-blasting options for bulk sampling.
Comments on Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application
Third, I will do my best to make some informed comments on G-Tac’s Bulk Sample Plan and Stormwater Permit Application. These comments should be considered preliminary because, as stated previously, as a busy working person it is difficult to find time to get through nearly 600 pages of material within the DNR’s alotted time frame.
The first and most obvious part of the Bulk Sample Plan submitted on November 25is the cover letter, in which G-Tac puts forward a few dubious claims. In addition to their denial of the presence of asbestiform grunerite cited above, the company claims that “no groundwater has been identified at the bulk sample sites” (item 12). It appears this claim is a response to your letter to Timothy Myers dated July 2, in the first item of which you ask, “Are any of the sites deep enough to intercept groundwater and if so, how will water such water be handled?” However, anyone familiar with the area in which bulk sampling will occur knows how wet it is and how close to the surface the water table lies. The applicant indicates on page 25 that their judgement that there is no groundwater rests solely on visual inspections of the surface at each site, and they did not even attempt to find the groundwater elevation at each site. They should be required to do so before making any claims about the presence or absence of groundwater. As you are aware, groundwater wasintercepted at G-Tac’s test drilling sites over the summer (2013) quite close to the surface, so close that at one site the groundwater bubbled to the surface beside an improperly capped well for several weeks after drilling was completed.
The storm water permit, if issued, will cover control of water running onto and draining from the bulk sampling sites. Details regarding such control measures are contained in the application and additional details were requested in the DNR letter of December 20, 2013.
On the Stormwater Permit Application, G-Tac makes a claim on Page 8 (Attachment A - Construction Erosion and Sediment Control) that “no local agency has authority to review” their stormwater permit plan. In fact, Iron County has in place a Ferrous Metallic Mineral Bulk Sampling ordinance (http://www.co.iron.wi.gov/docview.asp?docid=13742&locid=180) requiring a conditional use permit for bulk sampling activity, which stipulates that impacts to surface water are to be considered in the decision of whether to grant the permit (Section H(5)). G-Tac must therefore have a determination from Iron County that they are in compliance with the county’s ordinance before the DNR can make a permit decision. The statement from the storm water permit application relates solely to the storm water permit application. Section 295.45(3m) essentially provides that DNR can issue the storm water permit regardless of whether there is a local storm water ordinance in place. It does not affect the ability of a local unit of government to impose other requirements on bulk sampling operations. As you stated, Iron County does have a bulk sampling ordinance and the company will need to obtain approval under that ordinance. DNR can issue its approval (in this case, coverage under the storm water permit) before action on the local approval but the company cannot proceed until they satisfy the local requirements.
Also in the stormwater permit application and bulk sampling plan, G-Tac stipulates that they will use straw bales as erosion barriers. These bales were used during the company’s exploratory drilling, and imported invasive grasses into the sites where they were placed (I previously sent you photos of this, and am happy to re-send the photos should you have need of them).
If straw bales are used, efforts should be made to obtain the bales from a local source. Also, the bales should be free of noxious species to the extent possible. However, if species such as reed canary grass are observed our field staff would evaluate whether its presence is a significant problem and if so, we will work with the company to address the situation. Specifically in regard to reed canary grass - while it is considered to be an undesirable species, it is not a regulated invasive species under existing administrative code, Ch. NR 40. As such, there is no direct regulatory mechanism which could be used to require removal of the bales.
Finally, as a professional Cartographer (M.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2013), I will provide some comments on the maps included with the stormwater permit application. First, I appreciate that G-Tac’s wetlands delineation consultant, Wetlands and Waterways LLC., took the time and effort (following your request) to actually download the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory data and overlay it on aerial imagery this time, rather than submitting screenshots of the DNR’s Surface Water Data Viewer as their maps. However, it is also my understanding that Tribal conservation agencies and the Wisconsin Wetlands Association have been independently delineating and mapping wetlands in the area. G-Tac should have consulted with these organziations about their findings prior to submitting a permit application, rather than taking an aggressively oppositional stance and attempting to bar independent scientists from the area (as they did with an August 22 letter to the Bad River Band of Ojibwe, later deeemed to be spurious by the Ashland County District Attorney—see http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/810066/letter-from-ashland-county-da-to-gtac-attorney.pdf). In fact, unmarked wetlands scattered throughout the area are clearly visible on the aerial photo used as a basemap for the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map (page 63). The absence of these wetlands from the Inventory does not mitigate against their presence in reality.
Department wetlands staff and staff from the Army Corps of Engineers have been on the site several times with the company’s consultant for the express purpose of reviewing the wetland delineation work. To date, DNR staff and COE staff have concurred with the findings of the consultant.
Only one map of the area submitted with the stormwater permit application—Figure 2 on page 18--actually includes the waterways that stand to be impacted by any stormwater runoff from bulk sampling sites. Neither the wetlands delineation maps nor the Barr Engineering site maps show which waterways could be impacted. This seems a major oversight, given that the sites lie within the drainages of Javorsky Creek and the Tyler Forks River, both designated trout streams. In fact, although runoff from bulk sample site 1 is indicated to flow west and north toward Javorsky Creek, only “unnamed tributaries to Tyler Forks River” and “Tyler Forks River” are named as nearby waterbodies in the Water Resources Application for Project Permits (page 5). (Here: http://www.wnpj.org/pdf/PenokeeSurvey_small.pdf is my own map of the area, which remains incomplete in that it does not show all existing wetlands, but nevertheless it gives a more accurate overall picture of where runoff from each site and the planned mine waste piles will go).
The December 20thletter requests additional information and mapping of all points of discharge from the disturbed area and waterways and wetlands within ¼ mile of the site.
Further, the Barr Engineering maps are large-scale and appear to show in detail the direction of flow and runoff control measures at each site, but do not include any metadata that would allow for a determination of their overall accuracy. The maps included in the bulk sampling plan do not include contour lines; the maps in the stormwater permit application do, but there is no indication of how this topographic data was acquired. The runoff arrows on these maps do make more sense with the contours included than without them, but this is still a topographically complex area with steep slopes that require care and accuracy in planning. Sediment runoff from these sites could have significant consequences for the health of downstream ecosystems.
The maps provided with the bulk sampling plan submittal do contain contour lines but they are quite faint and may not be evident in the electronic version posted on our web site. Nevertheless, the storm water permit application contains very similar maps and the information is available there. We recognize the importance of appropriate storm water control and will not issue the necessary permit coverage unless appropriate planning and implementation are reflected in the application. If the permit is issued, we will also conduct frequent site inspections to make sure the plans are being followed.
Conclusion
Finally, I will conclude my comments with the most important reason to deny G-Tac’s stormwater permit and any other permits or exemptions connected to bulk sampling. Simply this: the people living in the area do not want this mine. A survey conducted by UW-Superior researchers released in September (2013) found that 62% of residents of Ashland and Iron Counties oppose the mine (69% oppose in Ashland County, 54% oppose in Iron County). The Bad River Band of Ojibwe, whose reservation and wild rice beds lie downstream of the proposed mine, is strongly and unwaverly opposed to the project; Bad River Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins has gone so far as to call the project a form of “genocide.”
At the very least, the Tribe’s concerns have been ignored and looked down upon by G-Tac and their supporters, despite the Tribe’s good stewardship of the area for over a century prior to ceeding their territory to the U.S. and the fact that they retain hunting and gathering rights in the area through the cession treaties. The company has used the Tribe’s opposition to try to divide the communities they will be impacting and reduce organized opposition to the project. Nevertheless, those communities have banded together in opposition, as many non-Tribal people in the area are rightfully concerned about the negative impacts of mining on the agriculture, forestry, and tourism sectors of the economy, which are currently growing in importance for the livlihoods of local residents.
The applicant is quite clear that the sole purpose of bulk sampling is to characterize the iron deposit to determine what kind of mill machinery is needed to process the mined ore. It has no redeeming scientific value other than as a necessary step on the road to an unwanted and environmentally disastrous open-pit mine. There is no statute or rule that requires the DNR to grant a stormwater or any other permit, even if everything in the permit were sound and in order. You have the leeway to make a determination based on what is best for the environment, public health, and the economy in the impacted areas. Please make the correct determination and deny G-Tac the permits they require to move ahead any further with this project.
The DNR is subject to the laws of the State of Wisconsin and as such we must follow the procedures established by our elected officials. We must evaluate any project within the framework and parameters provided in the statutes. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DNR that the proposed project will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, the DNR is obligated to issue the necessary approvals. If such demonstration is not made, DNR would be prepared to deny the approvals. However, as stated above we must follow the applicable procedures and evaluate the project in accordance with the appropriate decision-making standards and criteria provided in our laws and rules.
Finally, as a professional Cartographer (M.S. University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2013), I will provide some comments on the maps included with the stormwater permit application. First, I appreciate that G-Tac’s wetlands delineation consultant, Wetlands and Waterways LLC., took the time and effort (following your request) to actually download the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory data and overlay it on aerial imagery this time, rather than submitting screenshots of the DNR’s Surface Water Data Viewer as their maps. However, it is also my understanding that Tribal conservation agencies and the Wisconsin Wetlands Association have been independently delineating and mapping wetlands in the area. G-Tac should have consulted with these organziations about their findings prior to submitting a permit application, rather than taking an aggressively oppositional stance and attempting to bar independent scientists from the area (as they did with an August 22 letter to the Bad River Band of Ojibwe, later deeemed to be spurious by the Ashland County District Attorney—see http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/810066/letter-from-ashland-county-da-to-gtac-attorney.pdf). In fact, unmarked wetlands scattered throughout the area are clearly visible on the aerial photo used as a basemap for the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory Map (page 63). The absence of these wetlands from the Inventory does not mitigate against their presence in reality. Department wetlands staff and staff from the Army Corps of Engineers have been on the site several times with the company’s consultant for the express purpose of reviewing the wetland delineation work. To date, DNR staff and COE staff have concurred with the findings of the consultant.
Only one map of the area submitted with the stormwater permit application—Figure 2 on page 18--actually includes the waterways that stand to be impacted by any stormwater runoff from bulk sampling sites. Neither the wetlands delineation maps nor the Barr Engineering site maps show which waterways could be impacted. This seems a major oversight, given that the sites lie within the drainages of Javorsky Creek and the Tyler Forks River, both designated trout streams. In fact, although runoff from bulk sample site 1 is indicated to flow west and north toward Javorsky Creek, only “unnamed tributaries to Tyler Forks River” and “Tyler Forks River” are named as nearby waterbodies in the Water Resources Application for Project Permits (page 5). (Here: http://www.wnpj.org/pdf/PenokeeSurvey_small.pdf is my own map of the area, which remains incomplete in that it does not show all existing wetlands, but nevertheless it gives a more accurate overall picture of where runoff from each site and the planned mine waste piles will go). The December 20th letter requests additional information and mapping of all points of discharge from the disturbed area and waterways and wetlands within ¼ mile of the site.
Further, the Barr Engineering maps are large-scale and appear to show in detail the direction of flow and runoff control measures at each site, but do not include any metadata that would allow for a determination of their overall accuracy. The maps included in the bulk sampling plan do not include contour lines; the maps in the stormwater permit application do, but there is no indication of how this topographic data was acquired. The runoff arrows on these maps do make more sense with the contours included than without them, but this is still a topographically complex area with steep slopes that require care and accuracy in planning. Sediment runoff from these sites could have significant consequences for the health of downstream ecosystems. The maps provided with the bulk sampling plan submittal do contain contour lines but they are quite faint and may not be evident in the electronic version posted on our web site. Nevertheless, the storm water permit application contains very similar maps and the information is available there. We recognize the importance of appropriate storm water control and will not issue the necessary permit coverage unless appropriate planning and implementation are reflected in the application. If the permit is issued, we will also conduct frequent site inspections to make sure the plans are being followed.
Conclusion
Finally, I will conclude my comments with the most important reason to deny G-Tac’s stormwater permit and any other permits or exemptions connected to bulk sampling. Simply this: the people living in the area do not want this mine. A survey conducted by UW-Superior researchers released in September (2013) found that 62% of residents of Ashland and Iron Counties oppose the mine (69% oppose in Ashland County, 54% oppose in Iron County). The Bad River Band of Ojibwe, whose reservation and wild rice beds lie downstream of the proposed mine, is strongly and unwaverly opposed to the project; Bad River Tribal Chairman Mike Wiggins has gone so far as to call the project a form of “genocide.”
At the very least, the Tribe’s concerns have been ignored and looked down upon by G-Tac and their supporters, despite the Tribe’s good stewardship of the area for over a century prior to ceeding their territory to the U.S. and the fact that they retain hunting and gathering rights in the area through the cession treaties. The company has used the Tribe’s opposition to try to divide the communities they will be impacting and reduce organized opposition to the project. Nevertheless, those communities have banded together in opposition, as many non-Tribal people in the area are rightfully concerned about the negative impacts of mining on the agriculture, forestry, and tourism sectors of the economy, which are currently growing in importance for the livlihoods of local residents.
The applicant is quite clear that the sole purpose of bulk sampling is to characterize the iron deposit to determine what kind of mill machinery is needed to process the mined ore. It has no redeeming scientific value other than as a necessary step on the road to an unwanted and environmentally disastrous open-pit mine. There is no statute or rule that requires the DNR to grant a stormwater or any other permit, even if everything in the permit were sound and in order. You have the leeway to make a determination based on what is best for the environment, public health, and the economy in the impacted areas. Please make the correct determination and deny G-Tac the permits they require to move ahead any further with this project. The DNR is subject to the laws of the State of Wisconsin and as such we must follow the procedures established by our elected officials. We must evaluate any project within the framework and parameters provided in the statutes. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the DNR that the proposed project will comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, the DNR is obligated to issue the necessary approvals. If such demonstration is not made, DNR would be prepared to deny the approvals. However, as stated above we must follow the applicable procedures and evaluate the project in accordance with the appropriate decision-making standards and criteria provided in our laws and rules.
Sincerely,
Carl Sack
Madison, W