Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, August 11, 2013
Posted on: http://envfpn.advisen.com
A board charged with protecting the Wisconsin River must decide this month whether a frac sand mine can be placed within its jurisdiction — a move that some board members feel is contrary to their mission.
The Wisconsin River is protected by state law for about 90 meandering miles from just northwest of Madison in Prairie Du Sac to its connection with the Mississippi River. A Lower Wisconsin State Riverway Board member estimated $30 million has been spent since 1989 to acquire protected land with the purpose of maintaining the river’s natural landscape.
Now, an Iowa company wants to establish a mine in part of the riverway to extract sand for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.Two members of the board in a memo said a frac sand mine had “the potential of undoing all the effort that has gone into establishing the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway.” The problem for mine opponents, however, is a provision in state law some call a “loophole” that will likely require the permit’s approval.
When the protected area was created in 1989, mining and quarrying were forbidden. In the 1990s, the law was amended to say a person proposing a non-metallic mine, which includes frac sand mines, “shall” be granted a permit if certain standards were met.
Board Director Mark Cupp said frac sand mines — which have started booming in the past few years — were not intended to be included in that part of the law. The alteration was meant to allow local governments to operate small sand pits for winter pavement and maintenance purposes, not major industrial frac sand mining, he said.
“What is happening is someone has discovered a loophole in the law that was put there for small quarries and sand pits for local government and they are utilizing it,” said board member Don Greenwood. “In terms of a precedent, it’s not a good thing to be having frac sand mining develop in this scenic riverway.”
Greenfield said the waterway is a source of tourism, and if the frac sand mine would be sited partially on protected land, he worries it could transform the once natural landscape into an industrialized zone.
The company says it can mine the site in an environmentally responsible way without being visible from the river and will create jobs in the process.
Frac sand mining has taken off in Wisconsin in the past four years, with about 100 sites popping up across the state. The sand is one of the products used in other states and parts of the world to fracture shale rocks, which release natural gas.
The proposed site of the mine is in Bridgeport, a few miles from the Iowa border. The Town Board unanimously provided the final piece of local approval in March. The mining company, Iowa-based Pattison Sand Co., was also given the necessary permits by the state Department of Natural Resources. The only approval Pattison Sand needs to mine in full is from the riverway board, according to Cupp.
The proposed mining site is about 300 acres, which in comparison to frac sand mines in other parts of the state is small. Of the 300 acres, about 50 will be on protected land. The company said it will proceed and mine on the rest of the land even if the Riverway Board denies the permit for the protected portion.
“Regulatory requirements have been met,” said Beth Regan, a permits and compliance coordinator for Pattison Sands. “Precautions are being taken to protect air and water quality and habitat.”
State law requires mines within the protected land to be unseen from the riverway when the leaves are on the trees. Regan said Pattison Sand’s mine will adhere to this rule.
Pattison Sand was one of 19 companies to be given a notice of violation by the Wisconsin DNR since November 2011 for problems at one of its mines. In Iowa, Pattison Sand was also fined for a 2011 incident in which sediment discharge destroyed 6,600 feet of mussel habitat near its site along the Mississippi River.
When asked about additional environmental precautions in Bridgeport after their previous citations, Regan said the company had worked with DNR to ensure air and water quality is protected.
Still, environmentalists and some members of the board fear a frac sand mine in the area could begin a process of industrialization of the environmentally protected area.
“Here is one place…you can come and see a river that is pretty much as it may have looked 200 years ago,” said Denny Caneff, executive director of the River Alliance of Wisconsin.
“The point is that it is such a unique river and the protection system is unique and this is an affront to that program.”
Pattison Sands expects 10 to 30 positions to be created with the company or its subcontractors.
The location of the mine shouldn’t be a problem, according to John Karnopp, Bridgeport’s town chairman.
“I can’t see from where the location is that it will hurt anything,” said Karnopp. “If it’s not visible, I don’t (understand) what their concerns are.”
The proposal calls for the mine to be located mostly on the far side of small hills, making it invisible from most angles on the river no matter the season. There will be at least 500 feet of distance between the mine and the Wisconsin River, Cupp said.
Cupp said he opposes the mine because he sees it as a dangerous precedent but will nevertheless vote to approve the permit.
“I have to administer statutes as written,” he said.