5/30/2018
1
Addressing Mine-Scarred Land in the Upper
Mississippi River Mining District
Geoffrey Siemering and Kyle Pepp
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Department of Soil Science
Production Totals
•814,000 tons of lead
•1,000,000 tons of zinc
•40,000,000 tons of ore
5/30/2018
2
Cleveland Mine, Hazel Green
Blockhouse Mine, Platteville, WI
Empire Mine, Platteville, WI
5/30/2018
3
Sick corn gets your attention!
Human and Ecological Impacts
5/30/2018
4
Current
• Ignored
• ‘Low-Productivity’ Land
• Hauled ‘away’
• Spread in thinner layer over region
Preferred
• Clearly identified
• Site access controlled
• Eliminate off-site movement
• Remediation plans developed
Regulatory Concerns
•No innocent landowner provision in state ‘Spills’ law
•Contaminant levels above regulatory thresholds require listing on state Brownfield/Contaminated Lands registry
•Real estate law requires disclosure of known contaminants
•Farm succession plans beginning to require environmental review
•Strong regulatory incentive to not test for contaminants.
5/30/2018
5
How can we help?
Several initiatives underway to assist local communities.
• Integration of mine map resources into current GIS based mapping systems
• Investigating soil amendments to immobilize lead and detoxify zinc
•Testing ‘low-engineering’ pollinator island alternative land use
Historic Mining Data Sources
USGS Professional Paper 309Heyl et al. 1959
Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey’s Mineral Development Atlas
• Data compilation effort began in 1945
• Gathered permitting information from mining companies
• Finished by WGNHS in 1976
• PLSS section maps of mine activity
• Aided by current data:
• County land records
• 2017 imagery
• High resolution lidar-derived DEM
Upper Mississippi Valley Zinc and Lead District (Heyl 1959)
5/30/2018
6
Regional Mining History
Lead digging sites with
LIDAR Hillshade
Farming above mine site Acid Slurry Pond
Mapping Process
Digitize Layers from Mine Atlas:
• Boreholes
• Underground Mines
• Unsurveyed Underground Mines
• Open Pit Mines
• Mines Shafts
• Abandoned Railroads
• Lead Digging Sites
• Acid Plants
• Missing Data Areas
5/30/2018
7
Add relevant layers:• City Owned Parcels
• WDNR Impaired Waters
• Civil Divisions
• Highways and Roads
• Orthophotos
• LIDAR Hillshade
Planning Applications
Problems
Runoff
Soil Amendments
•Composted yard waste
•Fishbone meal + sulfur
•Triple super phosphate (TSP)
•Phosphoric acid
•Non-amended control.
5/30/2018
8
Pollinator Islands
Would pollinator islands be successful in these areas?
•Put lands into conservation easements,
•Can pollinator plants be grown successfully in mine-scarred soil?
•Will the pollinator plants absorb Pb into their tissues?
•Can we develop a faster way to measure metal content in plant tissue?
Assessment Grant Options
5
Applicants that exceed the maximum number of proposals allowable for Assessment Grants will
be contacted, prior to review of any of the proposals by EPA, to determine which proposal(s) the
applicant will withdraw from the competition.
Assessment Grant Option Summary
1. Community-Wide 2. Site-Specific 3. Coalition
Up to $200,000 for
hazardous substances OR
$200,000 for petroleum
Up to $300,000 for
hazardous substances AND
petroleum, where the
amount of hazardous
substances or petroleum
does not exceed $200,000
for any individual type of
grant funding
Up to $200,000 for
hazardous substances, or
petroleum, or combination
of both types of funding
Up to $600,000 for
hazardous substances, or
petroleum, or combination
of both types of funding
No waiver of funding limit May request a waiver for
up to $350,000
No waiver of funding limit
Maximum amount for
hazardous substances OR
petroleum: $200,000
Maximum amount for
hazardous substances AND
petroleum: $300,000; may
not exceed $200,000 for any
individual type of grant
funding
Maximum amount:
$350,000
Maximum amount:
$600,000
May also apply for a Site-
specific Grant; may not
apply as a member of a
coalition
May also apply for a
Community-wide Grant;
may not apply as a member
of a coalition
May not apply for an
individual Community-
wide or Site-specific Grant
or as part of another
coalition
1. Community-Wide Assessment Grants
For Community-wide proposals, applicants may request hazardous substances funding1 for
sites with potential contamination of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants and
1 Sites eligible for hazardous substances funding are those sites with the presence or potential presence of hazardous
substances, pollutants, contaminants, sites that are contaminated with controlled substances or that are mine-scarred
5/30/2018
9
Rural Communities Not Excluded!
51
5.d.ii.2. Compliance with Grant Requirements (5 points)
The extent of compliance with the workplan, schedule and terms and conditions, and whether
progress was made, or is being made, towards achieving the expected results of the grant in a
timely manner. If expected results were not achieved, whether the measures taken to correct the
situation were reasonable and appropriate.
A demonstrated history of timely and acceptable reporting, as required by the awarding
agency/organization.
– OR –
5.d.iii. Has Never Received Any Type of Federal or Non-Federal Assistance Agreements
(5 points)
Whether you clearly affirm that your organization has never received any type of federal or
non-federal assistance agreement (grant).
V.B. Considerations and Other Factors
In making final selection recommendations from among the most highly ranked applicants on
each of the lists discussed in Section V.C., EPA’s Selection Official may consider the following
factors if appropriate. In their proposals, applicants should provide a summary on whether and
how any of these other factors apply:
• the proposed assessment project advances the applicable region’s regional priority(ies);
• fair distribution of funds between urban and non-urban areas, including an equitable
distribution to “micro” communities (those communities with populations of 10,000 or less).
EPA strongly encourages non-urban communities, including “micro” communities, to apply;
• the jurisdiction is located within, or includes, a county experiencing “persistent poverty”
where 20% or more of its population has lived in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured
by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the most recent Small Area Income and
Poverty Estimates;
• the distribution of funds among EPA’s ten Regions and among the states and territories;
• compliance with the 25 percent statutory petroleum funding allocation;
• whether the applicant is a federally-recognized Indian tribe or United States territory or
whether the project is assisting a tribe or territory;
• whether target brownfield site(s) are impacted by mine-scarred land;
• whether the project primarily focuses on Phase II assessments;
• demonstrated firm leveraging commitments for facilitating brownfield project completion, by
identifying in the proposal the amounts and contributors of resources including
documentation that ties directly to the project; and/or
• whether the applicant is a recipient of an EPA Brownfields Area-Wide Planning grant.
V.C. Review and Selection Process
Timely submitted proposals will initially be reviewed by the appropriate EPA Regional Office to
determine compliance with the applicable threshold criteria for Assessment Grants (Sections
III.B. and III.C.). All proposals that pass the threshold criteria review will be evaluated by
Rural Solar?
Summary
•Mine scarred lands in many states
•Local communities know of mining history, but not hazards this history still causes
•Agriculture industry and agencies may not be aware of historic mining hazards
• Institutional control and non/low engineered interventions can be used to protect public health
•EPA Brownfields funding a potential funding source
5/30/2018
10
AcknowledgementsNorth Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Planning Grant 2016-2017
UW Consortium for Extension and Research in Agriculture and Natural Resources (CERANR)
Soil Amendment, Pollinator Plants 2017-2019
UW Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education
Mapping Resources 2017-2018
Contact information:
Geoff Siemering [email protected] 608-262-9969
Kyle Pepp [email protected]
