CHAPTER FOUR

                         ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

                               AND THEIR ASSOCIATED IMPACTS

                    IMPLEMENTATION AND PROJECT SCOPE ALTERNATIVES

NO ACTION

The no action alternative is abandonment of the project by Exxon. The environmental
impacts
no action situation are essentially those impacts presently occurring or
those that would occur
the existing land use and predicted trends without mining. Exxon' s existing
employees would l1
leave the Rhinelander area, and Exxon would close its Rhinelander office.
Exxon might sell th4
and mineral rights, or consider other options. If no action is taken on the
project, all the drill I
would be permanently abandoned and the sites regraded and revegetated. The
drill sites would
eventually revert to forest species. Permanently abandoning the drill holes
could allow Exxon;
secure the release of its exploration bond.

A no action alternative would have fiscal implications for the Local Investment
and Mining ImF
Fund Board (MIB) and the State of Wisconsin. During the permitting period
(1983-1986), the FI
paid $100,000 annual block grants to Lincoln and Nashville townships and
two tribes (Mole Lake
Chippewa and Forest County Potawatomi) in the vicinity of the mine. The source
of the funds
through loans authorized by the legislature based on the assumption that
the loans would be rep
after mining began. Without a mining project, there would be no immediate
source of revenue
MIB for loan repayment.

PROJECT EXPANSION OR REDUCTION

In general, there is an optimum rate of ore removal for a given orebody.
The most important f
influencing ore removal is whether the orebody can be mined by surface methods
(open pit or s
mining) versus underground methods. For an underground mine, orebody characteristics
such a
shape, orientation, maximum depth, degree of weathering, and ore grade and
distribution influx
the method of ore removal while the production rate is limited by the ore
hoisting capacity of:
production shaft(s). Expanding the size of the main shaft or increasing the
number of producti4
shafts to increase production would be expensive. Moreover, the mill facilities
also would havE
upgraded otherwise there would be little benefit to this altermative.

Mine/mill production must provide a satisfactory economic return. Though
an increase in pro}
over the proposed rate is possible, a significant increase seems unlikely.
An accelerated prodQ
rate would speed up some of the predicted impacts (e.g., tax generation,
tailings leachate
generation). Significant metals price changes could result in changes of
the rate and amount d
massive and stringer ore removal as well as changes of the estimate of ore
reserves.

Long-term reductions in the rate of ore removal and processing could occur
under certain -ecoQ
and marketing conditions. Mining companies have reduced production in order
to retain key,
employees while they wait for the end of adverse market conditions. Short-term
causes includ
breakdown of one or more ore processing elements, transportation problems,
fires or other read
These possible interruptions are alleviated by surge storage areas for the
ore or the concentrat
(coarse ore storage building, concentrate storage and the preproduction ore
storage pad) so tha
least part of the process could continue. Fixed costs, such as mine pumping,
would continue e
the mine were temporarily closed. A temporary reduction in operating rate
would not significd
alter the environmental impacts other than extending the impacts over a longer
time period ad
delaying final reclamation. Staffing, taxes and other socioeconomic impacts
would depend on ,
severity and longevity of the reduced production.



The life of the mine might be extended if greater ore reserves were discovered.
In general, m4
mines have a lower grade but a greater tonnage of ore than expected. If this
occurs, some chla
permits, such as the solid waste license, would be necessary to account for
the increased volurr
                                             -218 -