Wisconsin’s mines and your favorite trout stream

In the last session of the Wisconsin State Legislature, a bill to stream line the mine permitting process was voted down.  Some of the contention over the bill was if the new process would allow the WDNR to make the proper assessment of environmental impacts. The concern over the environmental impacts of mines is not exclusive to Wisconsin.  The annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society included the Fisheries and Hard Rock Mining symposium.  A synopsis of the symposium appeared in the February issue of Fisheries; here I will summarize the synopsis.

The symposium can be broken down into four topics: the effects of metal mines on aquatic ecosystems, the effects of copper mines on salmonids and water quality, mine waste mitigation and disposal and legal and education issues.  I will skip the discussion on copper because the mine at issue in Wisconsin is an iron mine.

            Five presentations highlighted results of studies investigating the impacts of metal mines on aquatic ecosystems.  These studies concluded:

-         Mines led to increases in diatom structural anomalies and percent tolerant individuals.

-         Mines led to decreased diatom and macroinvertebate taxa richness, biofilm and fish percent intolerant individuals.

-         Mines changed fish, macroinvertebrate and diatom assemblage structure at local and catchment levels.

-         Metal contamination remained in streams more than 100 years after mining began.

-         Fisheries were limited by poor physical habitat structure, increased sediment levels and high temperature in a mining district.

Ten presentations focused on mine waste mitigation and disposal, with some highlighting results of studies on this issue.  These studies concluded:

-         Capture and treatment of pre-mining, metal-laden surface waters along with capture and treatment of mining effluents can decrease metal concentration and increase the range of salmonids.

-         Continued treatment and maintenance is required to maintain decreased metal concentration and increased salmonid range.

-         Environmental impact statements and environmental assessments often underestimate impacts on water quality.

-         Inadequate flows due to excessive water withdrawals and naturally variable flows was the major limiting factor on fisheries at a mining site.

-         Mitigation was more effective when it involved a variety of stakeholders and accounted for the whole ecosystem.

-         Fisheries impacts can be reduced if there is careful planning for a mine closing.

Three presentations focused on the legal and educational issues involved in the conflict between fisheries and mines.  Some of the key points were:

-         The Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate and remediate mine waste is limited by the resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

-         Taxpayers take responsibility for clean up efforts but some mining companies do fund them.

-         The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability act faces uncertain funding by congress.

-         Legal liability is a hindrance because second parties assume liability when initiating rehabilitation or restoration efforts

-         Good Samaritan protections would assist in clean up efforts of abandoned mine lands

Implications for anglers:

            Wisconsin can have its mines and its fisheries.  Although there is evidence that mining operations have negative impacts on fishes and their aquatic ecosystem, there is also evidence that the impacts can be mitigated.  One presentation reported that mitigation efforts were most effective when a variety of stakeholders were involved; anglers must be a part of this effort.  Government agencies often don’t have adequate resources and often underestimate impacts on water quality, and so shouldn’t be trusted.  Mining companies, for a variety of reasons, shouldn’t be trusted when it comes to caring for the environment.  Oversight by groups that take ownership of aquatic resources is the only way to hold mining companies and government agencies accountable.  Anglers are one of the biggest and most influential of these groups. 

There are obvious risks to fisheries when mines are introduced to an area, and anglers should be aware that impacts from mines can ruin trout streams for generations.  There are thousands of trout streams in Wisconsin.  An iron mine in Wisconsin will not destroy inland trout fishing in the state.  However, with proper oversight from anglers, and hopefully other concerned groups, no trout streams have to be lost to mines.

References:

O’Neal, S., and R.M. Hughes. 2012. Fisheries and hard rock mining: AFS symposium synopsis. Fisheries. 37: 54-55.

Selected definitions:

Diatom: a single-celled alga that has a cell wall of silica

Percent tolerance: percent of organisms in sample that are highly tolerant to impairment

Assemblage: all of the various species that exist in a particular habitat

Catchment: an extent of land where water from precipitation drains into a body of water

Effluents: liquid waste discharged into a body of water