Reports
What You Should Know About Exxon’s Proposed Crandon/Mole Lake Mine
Compiled by Al Gedicks, Exec. Secretary
WISCONSIN RESOURCES PROTECTION COUNCIL
14 Copeland Avenue #115
La Crosse, WI 54603-3413
(608) 784-4399
Revised and Updated, August 1999
| Environmental Aspects | Socio-Economic Aspects | Cultural Aspects | Sources |
Note: Sources are footnotes indicated in report by ( number).
Environmental Aspects
1. Basic description of Exxon/Rio Algom’s proposed mine.
Exxon sold its 50% interest in the project to Rio Algom in January 1998. Afterwards, Rio Algom changed the name from the Crandon Mining Company (CMC) to Nicolet Minerals Co. Exxon still owns the mineral rights to the deposit and retains a profit-sharing agreement with Rio Algom under terms of the sale.
a. one of the largest zinc/copper deposits in North America (source: Exxon Coal and Minerals: A Profile, 1991, p. 4) The ore body itself is a vertical slab about one mile in length, averaging 200 feet in width, and extending to a depth of 2800 feet. Exxon proposes to dig an underground mine to extract 55 million tons of rock while recovering about two million tons of zinc-copper ore over about 28 years.
b. these minerals are found as massive sulfides, or rocks formed by minerals in combination with sulphur. Unlike iron mining, sulfide rock can produce sulfuric acid, as well as high levels of poisonous heavy metals like mercury, lead, zinc, arsenic, copper and cadmium, when exposed to air or water during and after mining. Acid mine drainage is generally regarded as potentially the single largest cause of negative environmental impacts resulting from mining. (1)
c. problems of acidity and radioactivity are linked: acid formation will lower the pH of the water and lead to the further dissolution of radionuclides, metals, and other toxic substances.(2) Exxon and the DNR admit there is uranium in the orebody but emphasizes that there are only trace amounts that do not exceed the background levels found in most types of bedrock(3). However, in a survey of various sulfide mines producing copper, lead and zinc, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that even where the total uranium content was below detection levels, radon daughter concentrations were at levels which posed potential health hazards to mining personnel.(4)
d. mine wastes have poisoned over 12,000 miles of rivers and streams, according to the U.S. Bureau of Mines. The release of mine wastes into the environment has resulted in many cases of fish kills, such as the dramatic trout kill on Montana’s Clark Fork River and the recent toxic mine sludge spill that flooded rivers and farms in southern Spain in April, 1998. The latter disaster involved the rupture of a mine tailings dam dyke near Spain’s Donana National Park. The toxic sludge burst from a mine resevoir of a nearby Canadian-owned zinc mine and left a thick layer of zinc, lead, iron and cadmium along a path of more than 20 miles. A local farmers’ association says some 15.000 acres of croplands have been affected.(5) About 60 Superfund sites are abandoned mines. More than a dozen of these are currently active and pose both human health and environmental problems.(6)
e. Because of the location of the proposed mine at the headwaters of the Wolf River, in an area with high rainfall and numerous wetlands and streams, Exxon’s own engineer said “You couldn’t find a more difficult place to mine.”(7)
2. The largest toxic waste dump in the history of Wisconsin
a. over its lifetime, the mine would generate about 44 million tons of wastes. Half of the waste–rocky “coarse tailings” would be dumped to fill up the mine shafts. The other half of the waste–powdery “fine tailings”–would be dumped into a waste pond about 90 feet tall and covering 355 acres. At a size of about 350 football fields, it would be the largest toxic waste dump in Wisconsin history. It would be larger than most towns in the state. The latest revision to the waste disposal plan calls for the company to remove the pyrites (sulfide mineral) from the waste rock and put the pyrite concentrate back in the mine as cemented backfill, while the remaining tailings would be sent to the the tailings management area (TMA) on the surface. One result of the pyrite separation would be a reduction in the size of the proposed TMA. The area and volume of the TMA may be reduced by approximately 25% from its original proposal.
b. even if the company invests additional dollars in pyrite separation, that would still leave about 1% or more sulfides. This would have the potential to form acid mine drainage and would still have to be isolated from the environment forever. Nicolet proposes to put a cover on the top and a liner on the botttom.(8) Basically, we’re talking about a big plastic bag sitting at the headwaters of the Wolf River. All liners leak.(9) The Wisconsin DNR says that as presently designed, the proposed clay liner at the bottom of the mine waste “would not provide adequate protection to the groundwater.”(10) According to Jerry Goodrich, former president of the Crandon Mining Company, the plastic liner underneath the toxic mine waste will dissolve in 140 years. “We’re saying after 140 years it vaporizes. It’s gone.”(11)
c. The monitoring wells discussed in Exxon’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would not be able to detect a leak from the tailings pond because any leakage will not migrate laterally away from the cells, but rather will be driven downward by the groundwater gradient pattern created by the cells themselves.(12) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service criticized CMC for failing to take into account the long term ground water contamination from the mine/mill which could persist for 9,000 years.(13)
d. future generations will face the ever-present threat of the mine waste ponds either flooding or collapsing. A 1996 report by Mining Journal Research Services concluded that the most important factors for predicting tailings dam failures concern water-handling in one form or another.(14) The mine site is a water-rich environment that is especially prone to heavy rainfall and snow melting. The geo-clay membrane covering the mine wastes will be 0.24 inches thick and will be exposed to many cycles of wetting and drying, thus increasing the potential for deterioration of the cover liner. To predict the stability of the waste ponds over time, it would be necessary to treat the waste ponds as “topless tubs subject to recharge, filling and overflow.”(15) Exxon has not done this. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says that the waste dump “should either be designed for guaranteed protection of the resources in perpetuity, or the project should be postponed until such technology is available.”(16) The lesson of the recent mine waste disaster in Spain is that the best available technology at the time may be inadequate to stand the test of time.
e. the backfilled mine will have another 22 million tons of tailings stored here – an amount equal to the amount stored in waste ponds on the surface. However, the mined out area is not designed as a mine waste disposal facility. This underground area will have open voids remaining in the shafts and groundwater will flow through these mine wastes forever. This area is only 500 feet from Little Sand Lake, which drains through the Town of Ainsworth to the Wolf River.(17) Moreover, Nicolet’s plan to put the concentrated pyrite (acid-generating material) back into the mine increases the likelihood of acid mine drainage after mine closure when the groundwater comes in contact with the sulfide waste. This scenario has already occurred at the Dober mine in Iron river, Michigan, where groundwater came in contact with pyrite in the abandoned mine and resulted in acid mine drainage that killed fish in the Iron River downstream from the mine. This mine closed in 1968. The operator did not backfill the abandoned mine with concentrated pyrite, as Nicolet Minerals proposes to do at Crandon. Nevertheless, the pyrite in the abandoned mine was sufficient to cause a major contamination problem once groundwater came into contact with the pyrite and made its way into the Iron river in Michigan and the Brule river just across the border in Wisconsin. The Michigan DNR reported that 10.5 miles of the Brule, downstream from the Iron river, was affected by the same acid drainage problem at Dober.(18)
f. At Rio Algom’s Elliott Lake uranium mines in Ontario, Canada, tailings containing 3% total sulfur are capable of producing acid rock drainage and will require neutralizing control measures for an indefinite period into the future.(19)
g. there are no examples of successfully reclaimed metallic sulfide mines where the mine is closed, the water treatment plant is shut down and the water runs pure and clean. The U.S. Forest Service says that “there are major technical uncertainties associated with the prediction of acid drainage potential at the time of mine plan approval as well as with mitigation or treatment techniques for post-mining use.”(20) In other words, if you can’t predict which wastes will result in acid drainage, you can’t develop controls to prevent acid drainage. Once started, acid drainage cannot be shut off; it becomes a “perpetual pollution machine.”(21)
h. CMC’s own plans for containment of the mine wastes have been criticized as inadequate and lacking scientific support by an independent mine waste expert hired by the former Public Intervenor.(22)
i. there is no evaluation of the potential risks of the wastes that will be generated by the laboratory to be constructed on the mine site. Over the course of the life of the mine, the laboratory is projected to produce more than a half million pounds of waste. The composition of these wastes needs to be evaluated to see if they are compatible with other waste streams and with the containment system.(23)
j. there is no evaluation of the impact of circulating sanitary water from the mine facilities to the tailings management areas (TMA). Circulating sanitary water into the TMAs could provide the necessary nutrients for bacteria that could greatly increase the rates of acid generation.(24)
k. In 1995 and again in 1997 and 1998 , the national conservation group American Rivers added the Wolf River to its list of the nation’ 10 most endangered rivers due to the pollution threat posed by the proposed CMC mine. The Wisconsin State Council of Trout Unlimited has passed a resolution opposing any permits for the proposed mine.(25) In August, 1999, the Federation of Fly Fishers listed the Wolf River as the most endangered fishery in the nation because of the threat from metallic sulfide mine pollution. “No copper sulfide mine has ever been successfully mined anywhere in the world,” said Bob Molzahn, chair of the Endangered Fisheries Committee. “It’s frightening to think we would risk this magnificient and irreplacable waterway with a technology that is unproven, and with such a tremendous potential for environmental devastation.”(26)
3. Groundwater Drawdown
a. Exxon’s proposed mine could cause a drastic and irrreparable drop in the water levels of lakes and streams in a four-square mile area. Over about 28 years, it would pump out up to 1,000 gallons of water per minute, over one MILLION a day, from the half-mile-deep shafts.(27) According to the Public Intervenor, “the protection of public rights in water is an absolute limit on DNR’s ability to permit this project, so this issue becomes crucial.”(28)
b. “One of the most serious oversights in the discussion of potential environmental impacts in the EIR is the failure to note that the simple act of drawing down the water table or changing the saturation profile in soils above the water table will create ground-water contamination. Sulfate, total dissolved solids, and metals (particularly arsenic) contamination of groundwater, particularly in forested terrains in humid climates and in areas with recharging wetlands, can be expected solely by creating a ground-water decline. In areas like the permit area, a strongly reduced zone develops in the soil profile that accumulates sulfur stored as sulfide minerals. Decreasing the water table (or dropping the saturation profile) brings oxygen into contact with these sulfide minerals, essentially producing in situ acid drainage….Without spilling a drop of process water and while perfectly containing all tailings waste leachates, CMC can, and likely will, produce significant ground water contamination just by creating the cone of depression.”(29)
c. there is serious disagreement between DNR consultants, CMC and Dr. Douglas S. Cherkauer, an independent expert on groundwater hired by the Public Intervenor on the key issues of the connection between groundwater and area lakes. CMC and its consultants have argued there is little, if any connection, between the lakes and the groundwter system. If this groundwater model is accepted, the data would seem to show an insignificant water drawdown from mine pumping.
d. this is exactly the scenario that occurred during the permitting process in the 1980s. “Exxon at that time designed its model so as to minimize likely impacts on the lakes. When the model’s shortcomings were pointed out, Exxon essentially refused to modify the model to simulate a reasonably conservative set of conditions.”(30) Based on an examination of CMC’s data, Dr. Cherkauer concluded that the data do not support CMC’s argument of minimal connection between the lakes and the groundwater. Quite to the contrary, “The lakes currently provide recharge to the groundwater system. Declines in ground-water heads due to mine pumping will induce more water to flow out of these lakes, thus upsetting the water balance of their water budgets.”(31) This is like the bottom of a bathtub when the water is draining out.
e. company assurances that the mine will not significantly drop stream levels are based on inaccurate reporting of existing flows, according to Dr. Cherkauer. Stream flows used by the company are lower than those recorded by the U.S. Geological Survey.(32)
f. divers in Little Sand Lake, less than a mile from the mine site, have confirmed the existence of spring holes in the bottom of the lake. The U.S. Geological Survey has confirmed that rock samples taken from the lake bottom indicate groundwater spring activity fed through the lake bed.(33) The DNR has done further drilling at the site to determine the extent of this connection.
g. in order to mitigate the groundwater drawdown, CMC proposes to pump water from deeper levels of the aquifer. According to Dr. Arthur S. Brooks, a biologist hired by the Public Intervenor, “the net effect of mitigation pumping will be to alter the natural flow of groundwater and to disperse toxic metals from the project site through a diffuse system of streams and lakes.”(34)
h. The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station said that Exxon/Rio Algom’s groundwater model is “not suitable” to analyze the potential effects of groundwater drawdwon. Instead, they recommended that the modeling be done by independent scientists because “with even state-of-the-art models one could bias the results to show any desired result from the project.”(35)
i. the changes proposed for the groundwater model will not be adequate to predict worst case scenarios for water drawdown around the mine. “This is because the model violates fundamental physical properties of groundwater flow systems that must be adhered to when constructing a model, and that are ignored in the present (and presumably redefined) model.”(36)
j. No regulatory agency in the U.S. has ever used groundwater computer modeling in their mine permitting process.(37)
4. Wastewater Discharge to the Wisconsin River
“If we can’t protect the Wolf, there’ll be no Crandon mine.” Jerry Goodrich, former CMC president. Appleton Post-Crescent 4/24/95.
a. the day after American Rivers designated the Wolf River as a threatened river in 1995, Exxon announced it was abandoning its plans to dump treated waste water into the Wolf River. Instead, the company said that it would build a 40-mile pipeline and divert the waste water into the Wisconsin River near Rhinelander. Because the Wisconsin River is not as protected as the Wolf, the company would not have to spend as much treating the discharge.
b. this new plan threatens pollution of both the Wolf and the Wisconsin rivers. The threat to the Wolf remains because the mine wastes would still be stored at the headwaters of the Wolf. The discharge of waste water into the Wisconsin could result in the bioaccumulation of heavy metals in aquatic organisms and changes in the natural species composition of the river.(38) The Wisconsin State Council of Trout Unlimited has said that “Wastewater that is unacceptable to an ‘Outstanding Resource Water’ like the Wolf River is no more appropriate to discharge below a paper mill and hydroelectric dam on Wisconsin’s namesake river.”(39)
c. the plan could actually increase groundwater depletion in the area of the mine because of the amount of water necessary to pump the wastes to Rhinelander.
d. the DNR has already gone on record as saying that the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), which is necessary for fish to survive and reproduce is already “fully allocated” at the proposed discharge point, meaning that no further BOD can be allowed. The only way that Exxon would be allowed to discharge pollutants would be if other industries upstream would lower the amount of pollutants they discharge. Rather than tell Exxon they can’t use the Wisconsin River as a sewer for their mine waste, the DNR is studying a “reallocation” of existing discharges to see if there is room for Exxon’s new pollution.(40)
e. the DNR is also ignoring evidence that sediment in the Wisconsin River contains high levels of mercury. Previous to Exxon’s plan to dump its mine wastewater, mercury had been listed as a dangerous, poisonous pollutant in the Petenwell and Castle Rock flowages downstream from Exxon’s proposed discharge. The addition of sulfates from Exxon’s mine wastewater would increase the level of mercury in the river and in the fish.(41)
f. The planned discharge would involve transferring waters of the state from the Great Lakes basin (Wolf River Watershed) into the Wisconsin River within the Mississippi watershed for a period up to 30 years. It is not clear what will happen to the water levels and temperatures in the Wolf in times of drought and low flows. The Wolf River is a world class trout stream and water temperatures are critical to the survival of sensitive species.
g. Federal law, namely, The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA) prohibits “any diversion of Great Lakes water by any State, Federal agency or private entity for use outside the Great Lakes basin unless such diversion is approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes states.” Exxon claims that because it is withdrawing groundwater instead of surface water, Great Lakes water is not being diverted. The WRDA, however, makes no such artificial distinction between groundwater and surface water. The Wisconsin DNR supports Exxon’s unique interpretation of the WRDA and claims that Wisconsin has sole decision-making authority regarding this international issue. The Army Corps of Engineers also determined that the interbasin transfer of water is legal.(42)
h. Eight environmental groups filed a lawsuit charging that the Army Corps of Engineers ignored federal law when it ruled that Exxon’s plan to pump ground water from its proposed underground mine is not covered by the 1986 federal law governing diversions of water from the Great Lakes or any of its tributaries. “It is a very simple lawsuit,” said Albert Ettinger, an attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Chicago, one of eight plaintiffs. “The Corps has taken a very narrow reading of the statute to protect the Great Lakes…Ground and surface water in the area of the proposed mine are interconncted so removal of ground water will prevent it from reaching streams and lakes that are a tributary of the Great Lakes.”(43)
i. Under increasing criticism for its wastewater pipeline to the Wisconsin River, Nicolet Minerals Co. has proposed to treat the water at the mine site and put it into a seepage basin, from which it would return to the groundwater.(44) Rio Algom’s proposal assumes that it would be possible to significantly reduce the amount of water flowing into the mine by placing grout (a cement mixture) over the entire ore body. If the mine inflow can be reduced, there would be less water to treat and discharge into the seepage basin. However,the company’s grouting tests failed to stop the inflow of water. Returning treated mine wastewater to a seepage pond is based upon the unfounded assumptions that the Nicolet Minerals Company can accurately predict the mine inflow from the surrounding bedrock and that this inflow can be redued by grouting. The company has never performed adequate testing, such as an aquifer pumping test, to figure out where the water draining into the mine will come from, or where it will go after mining. Instead, the company has relied upon faulty computer models to make projections that independent experts have consistently rejected. Regardless of the amount of water to be treated, the discharge of mine wastewater into seepage basins would ultimately allow pollutants to contaminate water flowing into the Chippewa’s wild rice lake and the Wolf River watershed. Rio Algom’s proposal is simply going from the fire into the frying pan.
j. Nicolet Minerals is still treating the wastewater pipeline as a possible alternative to the seepage ponds which may be resurrected if ongoing problems in the company’s groundwater model cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Socio-Economic Aspects
“A poll of Wisconsin residents indicated that more than half were against a proposed mining project at Crandon and less than a third were for it.”
Results of a poll of Wisconsin residents conducted by Chamberlain Research Consultants. October , 1997.
“If I were in their shoes – that is the people of Crandon – I wouldn’t believe the numbers coming from Crandon Mining Co.’s predictions.”(45)
Prof. Bill Freudenberg, Rural Sociology, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, consultant to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
“The mining companies’ economic growth projections weren’t worth the paper they were written on.”
A former mayor of Craig, Colorado, a coal boom town.(46)
1. Will Mining Bring Economic Prosperity to Northern Wisconsin?
Exxon and Rio Algom have promised major economic benefits from mining jobs and taxes with no negative effects on the local economy either during or after the project. Unfortunatey, these rosy economic projections are not supported by evidence from other mining communities or from the track record of either Exxon or Rio Algom.
a. the predictions used to assess economic impacts are often just “shots in the dark.” The literature on socio-economic projections has shown that the margin of error in the past commonly reaches average levels of 100 percent. The main reasons for this high margin are the lack of accurate data for exact employment, poor or inadequate baseline predictions, and assessing areas of impact which cross jurisdictional borders of communities with different decision-making powers.(47) Neither Exxon/Rio Algom, nor its contractors have shown any evidence that the local labor force has the necessary job skills required by Exxon contractors. A number of recent studies of job growth show that, on average, only about 25% of new jobs go to local residents.(48)
b. in making these rosy economic projections, CMC has defined the study area to include the entire three-county area including Forest, Langlade and Oneida counties. This broad choice of definition insures that the economic contribution of the project will appear much higher than it would if the analysis were done only on Forest County, only on Mole Lake, or any other subregion of the 3 county area. It also assures that the relative concentration of benefits in certain subareas will be disguised.(49) For example, CMC says the project will be composed of “local area residents and workers that will migrate to the area.” CMC does not consider a third category, namely, workers who commute in to the study area to work. These workers, who commute in, but live elsewhere, do not contribute to the direct or indirect economic output of the study area. It is likely that most of the permanent employees will not live at Mole Lake, in the Towns of Lincoln or Nashville, or even in the whole of Forest County.
2. Mining Projects Are Often Associated with Rural Poverty
c. CMC’s estimate of the number of in-migrants is based on the number of job slots open. But experience shows that major project areas attract many more than this number of people to relocate there. Mining communities frequently attract more workers than can be employed, creating high rates of unemployment in mining communities.(50) The problem is that “as jobs develop in a fast-growing area, the unemployed will be attracted from other areas in sufficient numbers not only to fill those developing vacancies, but also to form a work-force that is continuously unemployed.”(51) This is one of the reasons why resource extraction is closely related to increased poverty in the affected area. A study which looked at the counties of the northeastern U.S. found that unemployment in extractive-based counties was consistently higher than in other types of non-metropolitan counties.(52) Median income levels are often lower than those in non-extractive based local economies.(53) The weight of available evidence shows that areas dependent on mining have much higher levels of poverty than do other rural regions and communities.
d. Many of the 400 promised “permanent” jobs will likely go to skilled miners who migrate to the area in search of mining employment. As of September 1995, the White Pine copper mine/mill, which is the largest employer in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, laid off 1100 miners.(54) These skilled workers will certainly be hired ahead of local people without this experience.
3. Mining Does Not Provide a Stable Economic Base for Communities
e. the sudden shutdown of the White Pine copper mine/mill illustrates the dangers of being dependent on a single industry. When a local economy (and the tax base) depend heavily on one industry, the economy in that area is unstable. Exxon says it will operate the mine for about 30 years, but the company is not prevented from shutting down before then. In Ladysmith, the Flambeau Mining Company, only in operation since 1993, has already received permission from the DNR to speed up production in order to shut down its mine a year ahead of schedule.
f. even if a worker has a secure job with Exxon, it is not clear that the employee’s health and safety will be assured. In 1989, Exxon had the worst mine safety record among the 20 largest undergound mining firms in the U.S.(55)
g. a huge project based on zinc, a metal in its “worst situation since the 1930s,” is clearly not a stable or reliable investment.(56) When Exxon withdrew from the Crandon project in 1986, it cited the low price of zinc, which at the time was selling for 44 cents a pound. But when the project was restarted in 1993, the price stood at 44 cents a pound.(57) The Canadian industry newspaper The Northern Miner has extensively reported on the low price of zinc, due to a “gross oversupply,” and the reduced use of zinc in auto sheeting. It has cited reports stating that “In the longer term, there are no real growth markets for zinc..use is forecast to fall.(58) The economic collapse of the Asian economies has led to an oversupply of both zinc and copper and falling prices. “We didn’t foresee prices this low,” admits Patrick M. James, chief executive of Rio Algom.(59)
h. in 1982, Exxon pulled out of a giant shale oil project near Parachute and Rifle, Colorado, after spending $400 million to get started. Overnight, 2,100 people lost their jobs, and 7,500 support workers faced an uncertain future. Local business people lost their shirts since they had invested heavily in the new business they expected. Even after Exxon’s pullout, outdated job publicity continued to attract a transient unemployed population, and placed added burdens on social service agencies just as those services were being cut back.(60) Big multinational corporations can afford to write off millions of dollars. Local communities can’t.
i. In January, 1999, the Mole Lake Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe, along with the Town of Nashville, the Menominee Indian Nation and the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Tribe, received a $2.5 million grant from the federal government to create an Empowerment Zone to end povertry through economic development.(61) This grant has resulted in the Northwoods Niijii (meaning friends) Empowerment Zone to offer long term sustainable jobs without the fear of a “boom and bust” economy, according to Nashville Town Chairman Chuck Sleeter.
4. Mining Projects have Significant Social and Economic Costs
i. CMC underestimates the public costs and overestimates the public benefits generated by the project. They say “The project is not expected to place any direct requirements for public services such as fire protection or security upon local governments in the area.” This statement seems absurd on the face of it. A huge project like this will have major direct impacts upon municipal service costs. CMC’s own data show that most schools are at or near capacity. If excess capacity is not available, the project will be responsible for significant public capital investment costs. The same is true for Crandon municipal wastewater treatment.
j. The best-documented side effect from mining is the boom and bust effect, wherby local communities gain from income during a mining operation, but expend their budgets supporting an increased population, and are left holding the bag after the company closes operations. These post-operation costs include physical clean-up (as in Rio Algom’s shutdown of its East Kemptville mine in Nova Scotia(62), sudden large-scale unemployment, and an inability to pay for enlarged school systems and city services.
k. boomtown residents are more likely to experience “unusually high levels of life stress, which arise not only from the amount of change in their lives, but also from the deficits and frustrations resulting from overworked community services, family needs and difficulties, and a host of other stressors produced by the boomtown environment.”(63)
5. Economic Costs may Outweigh Economic Benefits of the Mine
l. although state law would require Exxon and Rio Algom to pay Wisconsin citizens a proportion of their profits after expenses, the company can find ways to make their expenses look larger and their profit look smaller. If the price of zinc and copper remain at current levels, or sink even lower, the company would not pay any tax! Exxon Minerals Co. losses came to $430 million in 1980-85; in 1991 they lost $36 million.(64)
m. a well-known impact of rapid population increase is inflation, especially in commodities such as housing and land. This, in turn, reduces “real” wages, and increases some property taxes. This especially affects those on fixed incomes, such as social security recipients.
n. the present economies of Forest County and Langlade County are healthy, according to Exxon’s own studies. The area’s economy is boosted by tourism on the Wolf River, Rollingstone Lake, Pickerel Lake and other water bodies downstream from the proposed mine. If the mine comes, will the area still continue to attract people wishing to escape the busy city for the pristine quiet of the northwoods?
o. none of the studies being done by Exxon and its contractors consider the potential long-term environmental damage to the economy of the area. A dollar amount cannot be put on the loss if our tourism industry is affected by harm to our resources. A waste spill could not only damage the resources, but cause expensive legal battles.
p. Wisconsin taxpayers who live nowhere near the mine would have to foot the bill for the costs of the perpetual monitoring and maintenance of the state’s largest toxic waste dump at the headwaters of the Wolf River. Replacement costs for the dump’s liner could reach $800 million over a 10,000 year period.(65) The Public Intervenor noted that Wisconsin has no way of evaluating whether Exxon’s estimates for the costs of reclaiming the mine are accurate. Exxon has every incentive to underestimate these costs so they can reduce the size of the bond they have to post as their financial security for reclamation.(66)
q. When Rio Algom closed its Poirier copper and zinc mine in Quebec, they avoided spending $1.2 million to clean up the toxic wastes left at the site by selling the mine to the brother-in-law of a government official for $1 in 1985.(67) Nine years later, when the government official was convicted of a breach of trust, Rio Algom agreed to take responsibility for cleaning up the site. To date, the site is still one of the province’s worst toxic waste dumps.
r. the bust that followed the mining and lumber booms in northern Wisconsin communities earlier in this century would be repeated during the bust phase of a gigantic Crandon mine. At this point almost all mining towns face a pattern of unemployment and swollen public service expenses, problems which are almost impossible to solve.
6. Exxon/Rio Algom have undermined local democracy by negotiating in closed door sessions with local units of government for advance permission to mine through a local agreement.
s. Citizens in the Town of Nashville objected to the closed door negotiations but their protests were ignored. Among the major problems local citizens had with the local agreement was the attempt to exempt the mining company from all town zoning ordinances, regulations and laws and to limit the powers of local government and the courts to directly or indirectly prohibit mining. In the election after the agreement was signed, four out of the five board members who had signed the agreement were replaced by anti-mining candidates. Local citizens also filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the local agreeement. Just before the lawsuit was scheduled for trial in June, 1999, the former town board offered to settle out of court by admitting their violations of the open meetings law. The details of the written admission are still being worked out, but the bottom line is that their admitted violations will be accepted by the Court as findings of fact and conclusions of law. Once this agreement is signed, the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council plans to ask the judge to reconsider his earlier ruling that he would not void the local agreement.
t. In September 1998 the town of Nashville rescinded the local agreement with Rio Algom’s Nicolet Minerals Company.(68) Without this agreement from the town, the state cannot grant a mining permit to the company. As soon as the town board voted to scrap the local agreeement, Rio Algom filed a “Notice of Claim” saying the town’s cancellation of the agreement was illegal. In direct correspondence with Nashville citizens, the company implicitly threatened to bankrupt the town through litigation.(69) The Nashville town board and a majority of its citizens are committed to protecting the town’s environment, and the health and safety of its citizens by standing up to Rio Algom. The town has established a legal defense fund to help cover the legal expenses necessary to defend itself. They have also established a web site called “Nashville Wisconsin Under Siege!” at http://www.nashvillewiundersiege.com/index.html Tax deductible contributions may be made to Town of Nashville Legal Defense Fund, c/o Chuck Sleeter/Joanne Tacopania, P.O. Box 106, Pickerel, WI 54465.
u. the Town of Nashville has responded to the lawsuit filed against it by Rio Algom by countersuing the company and removing the case to Federal Court in Milwaukee. The town charges that the local agreement was the result of a conspiracy by the mining company and the town’s former attorney (Kevin Lyons) to defraud the town of its zoning authority over the proposed mining operations. The town alleges in its countersuit that Kevin Lyons agreed to recommend approval of the local agreement by the former town board in return for the mining company’s agreement to pay him over $350,000 in past due legal fees and expenses supposedly incurred while representing the town.(70)
Cultural Aspects
“The Mole Lake reservation was designed to guarantee forever the Sokaogon’s control of the aquatic resources of Rice Lake, its clean water, fish, waterfowl, and, most important, its wild rice.”
Robert Gough, “A Cultural-Historical Assessment of the Wild Rice Resource of the Sokaogon Chippewa,” in COACT Research, Inc., An Analysis of the Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Mining and Mineral Resource Development on the Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Madison, Wisconsin 1980, p. 390.
“The Wolf River is the lifeline of the Menominee people and central to our existence. We will let no harm come to the river.”
John Teller, former Menominee Tribal Chairman, in Isthmus (Madison, WI), 5/26/95
“The mine as proposed would be a serious threat to the Wolf River as a trout stream, recreational river, and tourist economy. The Wolf River is, indeed a very unique river, one of the last clean, large white water trout streams in the midwest. The river is irreplacable and priceless.”
Herb Buettner, Wolf River Chapter, Trout Unlimited
1. Threats to Native American Cultures Are Inseparable from Environmental Threats
“Indian tribes in the northern portions of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan are seriously threatened by sulfide mining operations in ways that are difficult for non-Indians to perceive. For Indian people, natural resource harvest is more than a means to provide food. It is a cultural activity that renews both the Indian person and the resource that is harvested.”(71)
a. threats to Native American cultures are primarily environmental. The Chippewa, along with other Indian nations in northern Wisconsin, already suffer a disproportionate environmental risk of illness and other health problems from eating fish, deer and other wildlife contaminated with industrial pollutants like airborne polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury and other toxins deposited on land and water. “Fish and game have accumulated these toxic chemicals to levels posing substantial health, ecological, and cultural risks to a Native American population that relies heavily on local fish and game for subsistence.” The importance of subsistence hunting and gathering can be seen in the fact that 86% of Sokaogon Chippewa families rely on hunting and fishing for food, and over 90% rely on gardening, ricing and picking wild plants.(73)
b. the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has noted the centrality of wild rice to Chippew culture in their analysis of Exxon’s proposed mine: “Rice Lake and the bounty of the lake’s harvest lie at the center of their identity as a people…The rice and the lake are the major link between themselves, Mother Earth, their ancestors and future generations.”(74) Compare this to Exxon’s biologist dismissing Chippewa concern over “those lake weeds.”(75)
c. Both Exxon and the State of Wisconsin have sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for granting Mole Lake the authority to regulate water quality on their reservation and to protect their sacred wild rice beds from upstream mining pollution. On April 28, 1999, the U.S. District Court dismissed the State of Wisconsin’s suit against the EPA and Mole Lake. This ruling says the Tribe cannot rely on the Wisconsin DNR to protect its water and wild rice resources from mining pollution.(76) The State of Wisconsin is appealing this decision.
c. a recent study commissioned by the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC) concluded that harmful effects on wild rice seedlings were noted at levels as low as 10 parts per million (ppm) for aluminum and 1 ppm for copper, mercury and cadmium.(77)
d. although the Exxon/Rio Algom proposed mine, immediately adjacent to the Mole Lake reservation is still in the permitting process, the pre-mining operation has already threatened important reservation water resources: “As a result of groundwater discharges by Exxon Minerals Company to Duck Lake in the early 1980s, the lake’s water chemistry was altered. A state threatened species of pondweed, which was found in the lake before the discharges, has not been found there since.”(78)
e. The Mole Lake Reservation (formed in 1939) is a prime harvester of wild rice in Wisconsin. Mole Lake Chippewa leaders fear that Exxon’s extensive groundwater pump tests in the area may have already affected the flow of water into Rice Lake and be partly to blame for the failure of the 1995 rice harvest.
f. The Green Bay Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said it was the opinion of the U.S. Interior Department “that the proposed Crandon Mining Company project may have a substantial and unacceptable impact on aquatic resources of national importance.”(79)
2. Mining would interfere with the exercise of Chippewa off-reservation harvest rights
a. The planned mine lies on territory sold by the Chippewa Nation to the U.S. in 1842, and directly on a 12-square mile tract of land promised to the Mole Lake Sokaogon Chippewa in 1855. Treaties guaranteed Chippewa access to wild rice, fish and some wild game on ceded lands. Any contamination of deer, fish, or wild rice from mine pollution would be a direct assault on Chippewa treaty rights.
b. Threats from mining are not new to the region. Just recently, the White Pine, Michigan smelter, operated by the Copper Range Company, agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement in an air pollution lawsuit. The smelter was emitting mercury, lead and arsenic over the waters of nearby Lake Superior at five times the legal limit.(80) These emissions were seen by the Lake Superior Tribes as a direct threat to their treaty rights “to enjoy consumption of uncontaminated fish.”(81)
3. Mining would have a disproportionately negative impact upon tribal lands and cultures.
a. with mining-related population increases the Sokaogon Chippewa can expect increased pressures on their forest resources, particularly deer and fish. While recent court decisions have recognized tribal treaty rights to these resources, mining-related population growth may significantly reduce tribal access to these resources through a reduction in the absolute numbers of fish and deer.
b. the Sokaogon Chippewa community is especially vulnerable to the problems of acid mine drainage coming from the toxic mine waste area because of its extremely small land base (approximately 1900 acres), its delicate ecology of forests and forested wetlands and the direct connection between surface and groundwaters in most of Forest County.(82) The Interior Department concluded that “The drawdown of ground water (cone of depression) which will lower water levels in adjacent lakes, streams, and wetlands and potential contamination of ground water may affect the value of these waterways for fish and wildlife, and the subsequent human (tribal and non-tribal) use of these resources.”(83)
c. there is an environmental justice issue here because the long term costs of the project will be borne by the tribes and local resisdents. The Interior Department has emphasized that “Even if the mining company makes substantial financial commitments for restoration of the site, there will more than likely be damages not provided for with financial assurances. The neighbors, particularly the tribes, will receive a relative meager proportion of the short term economic benefit, but by virtue of the location of their lands, will inherit the brunt of the environmental problems and economic bust cycle. It seems unfair that a large and powerful, but temporarily involved, interested party can reap the benefits, but leave the majority of the costs to less powerful interests who cannot reasonably move from the area to escape long term costs.”(84)
d. The Menominee Reservation, located directly downstream from the proposed mine, stands to be negatively impacted. The Tribe has occupied the Wolf River area for 8000 years. The name “Menominee” or “OMAEQNOMENEWAK” means Wild Rice People.(85) The Menominee Reservation, nearly 235,000 acres, features some of the finest managed forestland within the Great Lakes Basin. It is the Tribe’s philosophy that actions which affect its natural resources must be judged according to their potential effect on the seventh generation, i.e., future generations.
e. “That seven generation philosophy is the reason the Wolf River, which is both designated an Outstanding Resource Water (“ORW”) under state law and designated as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers system from the Langlade-Menominee County line downstream to Keshena Falls..is still pristine. The Wolf River runs through the Menominee Reservation and is the heart and soul of this reservation and its people. Any action taken which affects the Wolf River would affect the heart and soul of the Menominee Tribe.”(86)
f. The position of the Menominee Tribe, as stated by former tribal chairman, John H. Teller, is that “Crandon Mining Co.’s proposed construction and operation of a hardrock metallic sulfide mine at the headwaters of the Wolf River seriously threatens this magnificent river. Water quality and tremendous ecological diversity is imperiled, including bald eagle, wild rice, lake sturgeon and trout habitat. The Wolf River is the lifeline of the Menominee people, and central to our existence. We will let no harm come to the river.”(87)
4. Exxon and Rio Algom have demonstrated a pattern of disrespect for and a devastation of Native lands and cultures.
a. despite possible negative impacts upon cultural sites of importance to the Mole Lake, Potawatomi and Menominee Tribes, Exxon’s consultant, Wesley Andrews, was pressured to write that there would be no harm to cultural sites. Mr. Andrews refused to go along with this because he believed it was a lie. He said that the material he wrote for an environmental impact report to state and federal agencies was “changed in many ways,” including the insertion of a statement that the mine would have no adverse physical impacts to traditional cultural properties of the tribes.(88) In a letter to the tribal chairmen at Mole Lake, Potawatomi and Menoninee, Mr. Andrews wrote that the firm he was working for, under contract to the Crandon Mining Company, had a “disappointing lack of respect for traditional culture and values of the tribes.”(89)
b. Exxon’s huge coal mine in Colombia, South America, has earned it a place on Survival International’s Top Ten list of the corporate violators of Native rights.(90) The El Cerrejon mine has brought both environmental and cultural devastation to the Wayuu (Guajiro) Indians, who have lived in the region for over 500 years, and survived the Spanish conquest with a large degree of independence. Wayuu community leader Armando Valbuena Gouriyu testified that former Crandon Mining Company President Jerry Goodrich managed El Cerrejon on a day-to-day basis as Vice President of Operations. “Jerry Goodrich promised us jobs and prosperity and instead worked to destroy our traditional ways and forced us from our land. This must not happen again. To allow this mine is to disappear from the earth.“(91)
c. In Colombia, the construction of a 95-mile rail and road connection between Exxon’s El Cerrejon coal mine and the port of Uribia disturbed the cemeteries of the Wayuu people. Exxon’s Intercor subsidiary removed the burials, and initially interred them in large structures without regard for the cohesion of families. The Wayuu, many of whom were relocated for the rail corridor, forced Intercor to rebuild the structures.(92)
d. In Alaska, the Exxon Valdez spilled oil into the waters of the Chugach and Eyak tribes. The Chugach had sold the port of Valdez to the oil companies in 1969 for one dollar, and
a pledge that the environment would be protected.(93) As we know now, the spill damaged
the fishery in a way that hurt white fishermen, and damaged the resource-based cultures of local Native peoples.
e. Serpent River Ojibwa band councilor Keith Lewis testified to the Wisconsin Review Commission about Rio Algom’s Elliot Lake uranium mines in Ontario, Canada. He said the Serpent River used to be one of the greatest sturgeon producing rivers in the province, but that the fish has almost been wiped out by radioactive and heavy metal poisons from the mines. In 1976, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment reported that 18 lakes in the Serpent River system had been contaminated by Rio Algom and Denison Mines’ uranium mining. Despite several years of clean-up efforts, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources biologist Will Samis says “No one on our staff has indicated that this river system is…fully recovered in all its parts.”(94) Survival International named Rio Algom and its parent company, Rio Tinto Zinc, as one of the 10 worst companies in 1992 in terms of damage done to tribal lands in the Americas.
Wisconsin’s Mining Moratorium: It’s the Law
The Mining Moratorium Law (Act 171) prohibits the state from issuing a mining permit until the applicant can provide an example of a similar mine in a sulfide orebody that has been operated for at least ten years and closed for at least ten years without pollution from acid mine drainage or heavy metal contamination. But the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is currently interpreting the law to allow two mines to meet this test. This creative interpretation not only serves the mining industry well, but also is a complete reversal of the DNR’s former interpretation of the law.(95)
At a February 1997 hearing on then Senate Bill 3, DNR official Stan Druckenmiller opposed SB3 in part because it would require a mining company to produce an example mine that was at least 20 years old. DNR Secretary Meyer restated the same interpretation in an October 1997 letter to then Assembly Environment committee chair, Marc Duff. Even Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which together with Rio Algom’s Nicolet Minerals spent more than $1.5 million fighting the law, used similar arguments against the law. Secretary Meyer acknowledged in January of 1999 that the DNR did in fact change its interpretation of the law after it had passed.
Passage of the moratorium was due to the efforts of an historic grassroots alliance of environmentalists, Native American nations, sportfishing groups, unionists, students, and others around the state. They opposed the proposed Crandon mine (and a planned Northern Wisconsin mining district) for its threat to fish in the Wolf and Wisconsin rivers, the tourism economy, and Native American cultures.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is now attempting to gut the Mining Moratorium Law by misinterpreting the law in a manner entirely favorable to the mining industry and by refusing to enforce it. As a result, concerned citizens have filed a legal petition for promulgation of rules for the law. The Natural Resources Board will take up the petition for rulemaking for the Moratorium law at one of its regularly scheduled Board meetings in the fall of 1999. You can write or call DNR Secretary Meyer and ask that rules be immediately promulgated for the Mining Moratorium Law and that public hearings be held. Contact:
Sec. George Meyer, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, or call ((608) 266-2121.
If you would like to read the full petition to the Natural Resources Board online, go to:
www.wsn.org then click on “Issues”, then on “Mining.”
Sources for footnotes indicated in report by ( )
1. Beverly A. Reece, “Acid Mine Drainage: Perpetual Pollution,” Clementine, Mineral Policy Center, Winter 1995, p. 3.
2. Earle A. Ripley et. al., Environmental Effects of Mining. Delray Beach. Florida: St. Lucie Press, 1996. pp. 209-210.
3. Don Behm, “Study shows little uranium at mine,” Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, 2/20/96.
4 Natural Radioactivity Contamination Problems. Washington, D. C: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. February 1978.
p. 47.
5. Marlise Simons, “Big Sludge Spill Poisons Land in Southern Spain,” The New York Times 5/2/98.
6. Van E. Housman and Stephen Hoffman, “Mining Sites on Superfund’s National Priorities List – Past and Current Mining Practices,” U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1992.
7. Cited in Larry Van Goethem, “Exxon Mine Will Feature Elaborate Waste Water Plan,” Milwaukee Journal, 3/28/82.
8. The warranty life of the synthetic material used in the cover system is typically 50 years. Exxon’s responsibility for the cover/liner system does not extend beyond 40 years. After that, the costs of monitoring, maintaining and replacing the cover/liner system will fall on the taxpayers. Assuming that replacement is required once every 100 years and the waste dump remains in place for 10,000 years, the 100 cover replacements would cost $800 million dollars. (See David Blowes’s comments to the Public Intervenor, July 1995).
9. Beverly A. Reece, “Leaks and Liners 101,” Clementine, Summer 1995, p. 3. Washington, D. C., Mineral Policy Center.
10. William Tans, “Updated status report on the Department’s continuing review of the proposed Crandon Mine,” January 30, 1996, p. 4.
11. Ed Culhane, “Project pits environment vs. good business,” Post-Crescent (Appleton), 12/3/95.
12. Charles H. Norris, “Review and Preliminary Assessment of the Permit Application Materials for a Proposed Zinc-and Copper-Sulfide Mine near Crandon, Wisconsin.” Geo-Hydro, Inc., Denver, CO. December 1997. p. 14.
13. See comments of Janet M. Smith on the proposed Crandon project, U. S. Department of the Interior, November 1994.
14. Mining Journal Research Services, “Tailings Dams: Reducing the Risks,” North American Mining, April/May 1998, p. 10.
15. Charles Norris, op. cit. p. 14.
16. See comments of Janet M. Smith.
17. Sonny Wreczycki, Town of Ainsworth Mining Impact Committee, Letter to Property Owners, January 7, 1998.
18. Dave Blouin, Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin, letter in the Pioneer Express (Crandon, WI,) November 2, 1998.
19. Phil Seem, Memo to Ken Fish, Menominee Mining Impacts Office, November 2, 1998, p. 3.
20. Acid Drainage from Mines on the National Forests, U. S. Forest Service, Washington, D. C., March 1993, p. 3.
21. Beverly A. Reece, “Acid Mine Drainage: Perpetual Pollution,” Clementine, Mineral Policy Center, Winter 1995, p. 3.
22. See comments of David W. Blowes, Ph.D. on CMC’s waste characterization studies, July 1995.
23. Charles H. Norris, op. cit. p. 13.
24. Ibid. p. 13.
25. “Council opposes Crandon Mine,” Wisconsin Trout Unlimited, Fall 1995.
26. “America’s Most Endangered Fisheries Announced,” Federation of Fly Fishers, August 5, 1999.
27. CMC Mine Permit Application, May 30, 1995, p. 53.
28. Waltraud A. Arts, Comments on the DNR’s draft EIS on the Crandon Project, June 19, 1986, p. 14.
29. Charles Norris, op. cit. pp. 14-15.
30. Dr. Cherkauer, cited in Laura Sutherland’s comments to the Army Corps of Engineers, February 24, 1995, p. 12.
31. cited in Laura Sutherland, 1995, p. 14.
32. Don Behm, “Professor disputes mine’s toll on streams,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/31/98.
33. “Mining Impact Group Disputes Lake Study,” The Forest Republican, 11/8/95.
34. Dr. Arthur S. Brooks, “Comments on the DEIS’ Description of Water Impacts of the Crandon Project,” June 1986, p. 9.
35. “Evaluation of Groundwater Modeling at the Crandon Mining Site,” Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi. February 21, 1996.
36. Charles Norris, op. cit. p. 16.
37. Menominee Nation Treaty Rights and Mining Impacts Office survey of U.S. regulatory agencies, 1998.
38. Dr. Arthur S. Brooks, “Comments on the DEIS’ Description of Water Impacts of the Crandon Project,” June 1986, p. 10.
39. Wisconsin Trout Unlimited, Fall 1995.
40. Ron Seely, “DNR says new study of river unrelated to mining company,” Wisconsin State Journal, 4/17/98.
41. David Webb, “Crandon Mine EIS – Mercury,” Memo to Bill Tans, DNR, 4/1/97.
42. Associated Press, “Crandon Mining wins approval of water plan for proposed mine,” Wisconsin State Journal, 8/13/97.
43. Robert Imrie, “Environmentalists sue over law affecting proposed Crandon Mine,” Wisconsin State Journal 6/5/98.
44. Associated Press, “Nicolet Minerals explains new waste-water proposal,” Wisconsin State Journal 6/16/98.
45. Ron Seely, “UW sociologist a doubter on mine,” Wisconsin State Journal, 1/14/98.
46. Freudenburg, William, “Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts of Mining: Lessons for Wisconsin.” A report to the Wisconsin State Assembly committee on Natural Resources, August 1993, p. 18.
47. Murdock, Steve H., Larry Leistritz, and Rita R. Hamm, “The State of Socioeconomic Analysis: Limitations and Opportunities for Alternative Futures.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Association of Agricultural Scientists, Biloxi, Mississippi, February 1985. Cited in “The Socioeconomic Impact of Mining in Wisconsin: A Report to the Wisconsin State Legislature, Assembly Natural Resources Committee,” with assistance from William R. Freudenburg, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Summer 1995.
48. Timothy J. Bartik, “Who Benefits from Local Job Growth: Migrants or the Original Residents?” Regional Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1992, p. 297.
49. Mike Wyatt, “Review of Crandon Mining Company Environmental Impact Report, Section 3.14 on Socioeconomics, and Section 4.2.13 on Socioeconomic Impacts.” August 25, 1995.
50. Tickamyer, A. R. and C. H. Tickamyer, 1988 “Gender and Poverty in Central Appalachia.” Social Science Quarterly 69 (4): 874-891. This finding is not limited to the extreme case of Appalachia. For example, of urban areas where jobs grew 50% faster than average from 1975-1979, almost half had unemployment rates above the national average in 1979. See Thomas Power, The Economic Pursuit of Quality, pp. 156-158.
51. Molotch, Harvey. 1976 “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology, 82(2): 309-332.
52. Krannich, Richard S. and A. E. Luloff, 1991. “Problems of Resource Dependency in U. S. Rural Communities,” Progress in Rural Policy and Planning, 1: 5-18.
53. Freudenburg, William R. and Robert Gramling. 1993. “Natural Resources and Rural Poverty: A Closer Look.” Society and Natural Resources 7: 5-22. Also, see Humphrey, Craig R. et. al. 1990. “Theories in the Study of Natural Resource-Dependent Communities and Persistent Rural Poverty in the United States,” pp. 136-172 in Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
54. Paul Peterson, “White Pine Mine to close in September,” Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, 7/13/95.
55. “Exxon Kills the Canary,” Multinational Monitor, October 1990.
56. Engineering and Mining Journal, 3/94, p. 19.
57. Milwaukee Journal, 12/11/86; Wall Street Journal, 11/8/93.
58. The Northern Miner, 12/12/94 and 4/4/94.
59. Aaron Lucchetti, “Commodity Prices Fall Amid Turmoil in Asia; Will Damage Spread?” Wall Street Journal, 2/5/98.
60. Gulliford, Andrew, Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale, 1885-1985. Niwot, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 1989.
61. “Nashville & Mole Lake receive $2.5 million development grant,” Pioneer Express (Crandon, WI) January 18, 1999.
62. See Report on the Track Records of Exxon and Rio Algom, Wisconsin Review Commission, March 24, 1995. Copies available from Midwest Treaty Network, 731 State Street, Madison, WI 53703.
63. Weisz, Robert, “Coping with the Stresses of a Boom: Mental Health Alternatives for Impacted Communities,” in Joseph & Judith Ann Davenport (eds.) The Boom Town: Problems and Promises in the Energy Vortex. Laramie: University of Wyoming, 1980.
64. Forbes, 4/29/85, p. 72. Exxon Corporation, 1991 Annual Report, p. 26.
65. See David Blowes’s comments on CMC’s mine waste studies, 7/26/95, p. 20.
66. See Matthew D. Weber’s memo to George Meyer of 8/22/95, pp. 3-4.
67. Andrew McIntosh, “Ousted environment offical to stand trial,” The Gazette (Montreal), 7/20/91.
68. Robert Imrie, “Mining company protests town’s renege on deal,” Wisconsin State Journal, September 24, 1998.
69. Letter from Donald A. Cumming, President of Nicolet Minerals, to Nashville Property Owners, November 9. 1998.
70. Ron Seely, “Firm, town trade barbs,” Wisconsin State Journal, June 18, 1999.
71. Sulfide Mining: The Process & The Price: A Tribal & Ecological Perspective. Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI, 1996, p. 17.
72. Tribes at Risk: The Wisconsin Tribes Comparative Risk Project, Washington, D. C., October 1992, p. ix.
73. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Exxon Coal and Minerals Co. Zinc-Copper Mine, Crandon, Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin. November 1986, p. 108.
74. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Exxon Coal and Minerals Co. Zinc-Copper Mine, Crandon, Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin. November 1986, p. 108.
75. Al Gedicks, The New Resource Wars: Native and Environmental Struggles Against Multinational Corporations. Boston: South End Press. 1993, p. 61.
76. Mike Monte, “Court says Mole Lake’s water quality standards stay,” Pioneer Express (Crandon, WI), May 10, 1999.
77. Peter David, “Study shows adverse impact of heavy metals on wild rice,” Masinaigan (Odanah, WI: GLIFWC), Summer, 1997.
78. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Comments on Crandon Mining Company’s Notice of Intent to Collect Data and Detailed Scope of Study, Crandon Project, Crandon, Wisconsin, April 23, 1994.
79. Comments of Janet Smith, U. S. Department of the Interior, November 1994. p. 2.
80. “Environmental groups sue mine over emissions,” Milwaukee Journal, 8/18/92.
81. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Comments on Crandon Mining Company’s Notice to Intent to Collect Data and Detailed Scope of Study, Crandon Project, Crandon, Wisconsin, April 23, 1994.
82. COACT Research, An Analysis of the Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Mining and Mineral Resource Development on the Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Madison, Wisconsin, 1980. p. 64, 177, 455.
83. Janet Smith, Department of the Interior, Comments to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 1994. p. 5.
84. Janet Smith, Department of the Interior, Comments to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 1994. p. 3.
85. Can the Wolf River Survive the Impacts of Hardrock Metallic Sulfide Mining? Menominee Tribal Environmental Services, Keshena, Wisconsin, September 1995. p. 6.
86. M. Catherine Condon, Comments of the Menominee Indian Tribe on Crandon Mining Company’s Notice of Intent to Collect Data and Detailed Scope of Study. May 1994. p. 1.
87. Isthmus (Madison, WI newsweekly), 5/26/95.
88. Robert Imrie, “Indian consultant disputes mining report,” Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 9/15/95.
89. Wesley Andrews, Letter to Arlyn Ackley, 8/16/95. p. 2.
90. Survival International, London, England. 1992.
91. Testimony to the Wisconsin Review Commission, Mole Lake, 6/18/94.
92. Report on the Track Records of Exxon and Rio Algom, Wisconsin Review Commission, March 24, 1995. p. 11.
93. Gregory Palast, “Broken Promises and the Exxon Valdez,” Chicago Tribune, 9/21/94
94. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, letter to Zoltan Grossman (Madison, WI). 1/24/94.
95. Green Bay Press-Gazette, January 29, 1999.
| Environmental Aspects | Socio-Economic Aspects | Cultural Aspects | Sources |
