NMW's NorthMet DEIS Comments

Read the entire paper (click here)

---

Earth Day Then and Now:
Naiveté, Realism, Fear, and Hope

News Topic(s): What's New*Minnesota Stories*Conservation History Conservation Heroes*

04/19/10 - by Chuck Dayton

On the first Earth Day in 1970, I assumed that by the time I was 65 or certainly by age 70, most environmental problems would be solved, and the world would be a clean and sustainable place.  I was a young lawyer, just a few years out of law school and had just joined the Sierra Club, my first foray into activism, (which caused me to be a little worried about what the conservative senior partners at my corporate law firm might think.)

The first Earth Day was a dramatic expression of a growing awareness that corporations had been using our air and water as a free dump, and something needed to be done.  It occurred at a time of anti-war protests and anti-establishment rhetoric: a time when change seemed not only possible but also inevitable.

Back then, Bad Guys and Good Guys were identifiable. Big Corporations were polluting our air and our water and we had to stop them. Timber companies and mining companies were gobbling up the wilderness.

Chuck Dayton

Reserve Mining was dumping the equivalent of 65,000 pickup truck loads of tailings into Lake Superior daily. The threats to an aesthetically pleasing, healthful and sustainable world were obvious, and fixable, if we just got busy and organized. Nobody argued that pollution was not harmful, and none but a few prescient scientists had even thought about global climate change.

 

Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson proposed Earth Day with students in mind, as a national “teach in” and an opportunity for students to create their own observances.  College campuses were the focus of environmental activism as they were for the Anti-War movement, Civil Rights, and Feminism. Karim Ahmed, a biochemistry graduate student organized an impressive series of events at the University of Minnesota for a week long “Festival of Life.” Crowds turned up to hear Senator Walter Mondale at Coffman Union. He was joined by Sierra Club President Michael McClosky. Ahmed also lined up Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb, and Buckminster Fuller. The current issue of the U of M Alumni News has a full article about it.

 

This was exciting and heady stuff. As a young idealistic lawyer in and old and established firm, it became increasingly clear to me in the aftermath of Earth Day that making the world a better place for General Motors, banks, auto dealers and grocery chains was not the way I wished to spend my hard earned education and my career. But there were no jobs outside of Government where one could purport to represent the public interest, and Government was not doing the job well. Just as I was searching for an alternative, Karim Ahmed and other students organized Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) taxing themselves $1 per student per quarter. I signed up in 1971 as its first employee. In that role I helped MPIRG bring the first lawsuits challenging logging in the BWCAW leading to a long congressional fight and new restrictions on logging and motor-boating in 1978.

 

When I joined Northstar Chapter of the Sierra Club, it had no budget, and about 50 members, but by the 1973 session of the legislature, these volunteers had managed to put together a fund (with a lot of help from Wallace Dayton) for Project Environment that hired the new law firm of Dayton and Herman (John Herman had been an MPIRG lawyer as well) to be their lobbyists at the legislature.

 

Today, Earth Day 40, while still an important affirmation of the need to care for the planet, seems to me less optimistic than in 1970. I no longer think that the big environmental problems will be solved in my lifetime. At nearly 71, I know that we are surely passing on huge burdens to our descendants, including those that may become impossible to solve, if climate feedbacks are allowed take over. The Bad Guys often claim they are green and some even argue that pollution by Greenhouse gases really won’t cause climate change.

 

The lack of political will to deal with climate change is discouraging. There are signs of public awareness and action, of course. The Northstar Chapter now has 20,000 members in Minnesota, and there about 70 different environmental organizations that belong to the Minnesota Environmental Partnership many of which, like Conservation Minnesota, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and Fresh Energy are enthusiastic, effective and hardworking advocates. And Minnesota has been a leading state by setting a goal of an 80 percent reduction of Greenhouse Gases by mid century and requiring 25 percent of electricity to be renewable by 2030. But so far, not much real progress has been made nationwide in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact they continue to increase.

 

Change takes time. For example, take the Civil Rights movement in my lifetime. When I was a ten year old, in an all-white small Midwest town, the “N” word was common on the playground. Little Rock happened when I was a college freshman, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 just after Law School. Sixty years later we have a black President and real change has and continues to happen.

 

But, for the problem of climate change, we are told that we do not have the luxury of time. Greenhouse gas buildup could soon pass some irreversible thresholds.  But, even though most Americans think climate change is real and we ought to do something about it, they also don’t care very much about really doing something quickly. The problem lacks immediacy. It not a “first tier” issue for most people. And the effects are long term, so the immediate effect of current actions cannot be observed. On top of that are the climate deniers who would do nothing, apparently because the scientific certainty is only about 90 percent.

 

Al Gore in Our Choice writes, "Not too many years from now, a new generation will look back at us in this hour of choosing and will ask one of two questions. Either they will ask, ‘what were you thinking? Didn’t you see entire North Polar ice cap melting before your eyes? Didn’t your hear the warnings from the scientists? Were you distracted? Did you not care? Or they will ask instead, 'How did you find the moral courage to rise up and solve a crisis so many said was impossible to solve?’ We must choose which of these questions we want to answer, and we must give our answer now—not in words but in actions."

 

Perhaps I’m feeling a bit down after reading James Hansen’s Storms Of My Grandchildren, The Truth About The Coming Climate Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To Save Humanity. Hansen, our leading climate scientist, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space studies, is always on the leading edge of disastrous predictions and usually turns out to be right.  His book gives a detailed explanation of the science we know for sure, that which we don’t know, and the horrific consequences that are within the realm of possibility. He knows from his experience of being ignored by the past administration how special interests control government, and is even skeptical that the cap and trade bill that passed the House last year would be helpful, because it protects “King Coal.”

 

What then must we do? Hope is important, even if we’re not able to be optimistic. I’ve always liked William Sloan Coffin’s distinction between the two:

 

Hope is a state of mind independent of the state of the world. If your heart's full of hope, you can be persistent when you can't be optimistic. You can keep the faith despite the evidence, knowing that only in so doing has the evidence any chance of changing. So while I'm not optimistic, I'm always very hopeful.

 

Persistence, as Coffin advises, seems essential. It may seem bothersome to limit our own energy use. Many of us hardly give long distance air travel a second thought, for example. It is hard to organize your own church, business, or neighborhood to engage in conservation measures. It is time consuming and difficult to get politically involved for candidates who support actions to curb climate change. It costs money to support the effective advocacy groups. But this much is obvious: we have not yet reached the critical mass necessary for meaningful change to occur. Talking about it a lot and taking action in our own lives is the best thing that most of us can do.

 

Our naivete on that first Earth Day quickly gave way to a recognition that to bring about change we would have to build a national movement and a variety of organizations capable of acting locally, nationally, and internationally. Even as the issues have become more difficult, it is our good fortune to have the legacy of 40 years of environmental activism to remind us that change is possible, but only if we commit ourselves for the long haul.

 

Chuck Dayton left private law practice as a young man to work for the fledgling Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) on improving environmental law at the legislature, with great success, especially in the 1971 and 1973 sessions.  He, along with another MPIRG attorney, John Herman, soon formed the first environmental law practice firm in the state, and Chuck, now retired, still does substantive work on environmental issues for various concerns.

---

Destructive Superior National Forest ORV Plan Challenged in Court

January 10, 2010 

DULUTH, Minn.— Conservation groups filed a formal appeal today of a federal plan that fails to protect wild lands in Minnesota’s Superior National Forest from damage from off-road vehicles. The groups are asking Regional Forester Kent Connaughton to reverse the Superior National Forest decision due to concerns about how the proposed off-road vehicle plan will affect threatened lynx, wolf, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

“The Forest Service continues to fail in its duty to minimize harm to the environment from ORVs. It continues to ignore the impacts of hundreds of miles of illegal roads and has no concrete plan to remedy the problem,” said Cyndi Tuell, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Increasing the number of miles of roads in lynx habitat violates the Forest Plan and will put the species at increased risk.”

Under this plan, all but two of the 30 areas of lynx habitat will continue to have open-road densities that are in violation of the law. Sharon Stephens, of the Sierra Club, noted that the current plan for those two areas doesn’t give any indication of when those few roads not designated as open would be physically removed, or how such closures would be paid for. “It’s unfortunate the Superior National Forest didn’t have a plan in place to take advantage of stimulus funds to create jobs that would actually get these unnecessary and harmful roads off the landscape,” said Stephens.
 
In April 2009, the groups appealed the Forest Service’s first decision to allow motorized travel on more than 1,600 miles of roads and trails in the Superior National Forest because of harm to air and water quality, noise pollution, the spread of invasive species, potential impacts on Boundary Waters, and a failure to protect endangered and threatened species such as Canada lynx and gray wolf.

While that appeal was granted in March, when the Forest Service was directed to analyze the impacts to air quality in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, “The Forest Service has made no substantive changes to its original decision, thus leaving the Boundary Waters vulnerable to continued impacts from off-road vehicles,” said Brad Sagen, chair of Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.

More than 1,600 miles of roads and trails would remain open to off-road vehicles under this plan, affecting more than 2.7 million acres of forest.

This decision is the Superior National Forest’s attempt to implement a 2005 regulation that requires forests to determine which roads they need, how many they can afford, and which roads should be closed because they are too costly or causing too much damage. Most forests cannot afford to properly maintain their current road systems, and implementation of this requirement is seen by many as an
ideal opportunity to bring the overgrown and unmanageable road networks under control.

The groups that filed the appeal are the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the BWCAW, Izaak Walton League, League of Women Voters Minnesota, MCEA, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, and Sierra Club.

---

 

A woman's perspective on the PolyMet draft environmental impact statement

By Elanne Palcich | Monday, Nov. 23, 2009

CHISHOLM, Minn. — I've spent my life on the Iron Range, caught in its mix of ethnic cultures, blue-collar hard-working ethics, and rural small-town living. The summer after I retired from teaching, I attended the scoping hearing for PolyMet, Inc., a proposed Canadian copper nickel mine near Hoyt Lakes. I came home with a 200-page scoping document and an emerging awareness of how the landscape of the Iron Range is a byproduct of a century of mining. 

The thought of turning the Arrowhead Region of Minnesota into a sulfide-mining district jarred open my heart, along with my mind. Mining destroys the land, changes the landscape by creating mountains of waste rock, pollutes waterways, and generates a boom/bust type of economy. Mining does this, whether it's in my backyard or yours.

After four years of reading through technical documents regarding the PolyMet mine, my mind rebels. There is no way to prove whether PolyMet will or will not pollute our environment. The figures come from Barr Engineering, and the fact of the matter is that none of us has access to Barr Engineering's software. There is no way to prove that any kind of computer modeling will hold up in the real environment.

 Technology and trust

The entire PolyMet draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is based upon technology and a trust in technology. My female mind rebels. It rebels at the thought of blasting and crushing tons of rock to extract pounds, or even ounces, of metals. It rebels at the whole size and scope of the project — at the thought of acid mine drainage contaminating our water for generations to come, into perpetuity.

My female mind asks, how will women benefit from this mining project? How many women would actually work in this kind of mine, or receive associated living wages? How many women would instead be given minimum wage spin-off jobs — in restaurants, fast-food chains, gas stations, grocery stores? Is mining helping or hindering our local communities? And where exactly do the majority of mining company profits go?

When the mining economy slumps, as is happening on the Iron Range right now, and domestic abuse increases, who receives the brunt of that abuse? Women and children. When electronic equipment is sent to foreign countries for the recycling of these metals, who are assigned these toxic pennies-a-day jobs? Women and children.

Who will bear the children who will have no access to future jobs because mining has destroyed the land for other opportunities? How many of us are living here now because we value the natural setting around us?  Do we value that environment enough to want to save it? I believe it's time for women to stand up and say, "Enough." 

A lifestyle based on extravagance and waste
The mining companies say we need these metals to maintain our lifestyles. The truth is that the low-grade, semi-processed metals of the Arrowhead region would be sent to Ontario for final smelting. Through PolyMet's agreement with Glencore, these metals would then be sold on the world market. The United States would be competing with China to buy our own precious metalsback. 
      
In global terms, my female mind does not allow me to acquiesce in a consumer lifestyle based on extravagance and waste. Who buys the large trucks, boats and recreational vehicles that demand their share of these metals?  I would say it's the men, while the women and children go along for the ride. Can we justify this kind of lifestyle when there are men, women and children in some countries without access to such basics as running water or sanitary facilities?

In the U.S. economy, large appliances are currently designed to last for an average of seven years. How does planned obsolescence of stoves, refrigerators and washing machines affect women, children, and household budgets? Who benefits most from this kind of economy?  Does it make sense to use finite resources and dwindling energy supplies in such an inefficient way?

Likewise, do we really need a flat screen TV in every room (and vehicle)?  Do we really want the TV media raising our children?  Do computers make our lives easier or more complicated — and how healthy is it to spend hours in front of a TV or computer? Will hybrid or electric cars reduce traffic jams and accidents? Do we need to live in mega-houses and then hire other women at minimum wage to clean them?
   
My female mind rebels when government and industry rush to create a renewable future that is based on using nonrenewable metals such as copper, nickel and platinum. Electric car batteries use lithium, one of the rarest metals on earth. We are simply exchanging an economy based on oil and coal for one based on the mining of expensive rare and low-grade metals.  

Look at the real impacts
The PolyMet mining proposal would not survive scrutiny from logic that takes into account the amount of energy and resources required to mine over 99 percent waste. Women's thinking does not allow charts, graphs, maps, and polygons representing waste rock piles to replace the real impacts that mining has on the environment. Women's thinking does not accept statistics that in turn allow our water to be polluted to some minimal level.  Those statistics, when taken in combination rather than individually, mean that our drinking water may not be safe for our children's bodies.

Women's thinking is not inferior to men's; instead, it provides an alternative view that is needed to bring balance to decision-making. Often when women enter the competitive corporate or political world, they succumb to the group thinking that surrounds them. Women thus lose their feminine perspective. By the same token, when men balance analytical thinking with the holistic side of reasoning, focused creative solutions are the result. With the huge problems facing our society today, including a shifting economy and global warming, the male-female balance is imperative. We need to stop and think about how short-term decisions are affecting the long-term future. 

It's time for women to make our voices heard, and now is the time to say, "Enough."

Public comment on the PolyMet/NorthMet DEIS will end at 4:30 p.m. on Feb. 3, 2010. Hearings will be held at Memorial Gymnasium in Aurora, Minn., on Dec. 9 and the Schwan Center/National Sports Center in Blaine on Dec. 10.  Open house will start at 5 p.m., with meetings at 7.

The PolyMet project needs to be put back into its box so that we can close the lid on its Pandora's list of problems. The Arrowhead region of northeast Minnesota exemplifies the balance of naturethat we need to maintain — for ourselves in a changing world, for the children of the future.

Elanne Palcich of Chisholm, Minn., is a retired teacher.

 

PolyMet takes next steps for controversial mine

by Stephanie Hemphill, Minnesota Public Radio

October 23, 2009

Hoyt Lakes, Minn. — Plans are moving ahead for a copper-nickel mine in northeastern Minnesota, a type of mining new to the state, but in other parts of the world similar mines are polluting rivers and lakes.

The old LTV mine north of Aurora, on the eastern edge of Minnesota's Iron Range, is a bleak, windswept place, ringed by piles of waste rock. They look like flat-topped pyramids, about as high as a 20-story building. Eight years ago, the mine closed and the company went bankrupt, and now the hills are covered with grasses and young trees.

LaTisha Gietzen watched as workers cleaned up the land where the old pellet plant has been torn down. Gietzen is Vice President for Public, Environmental, and Governmental Affairs at PolyMet Mining.

PolyMet plans to use some of the 60-year-old buildings, and the expensive machinery in them, to coax copper, nickel and other metals far more valuable than taconite out of the rock.

"It's a huge asset for the state to have," Gietzen said. "To be able to reuse this existing infrastructure is an excellent opportunity for all of us."

PolyMet bought the buildings, the railroad track, and the electric substation. Six miles to the northeast, PolyMet wants to dig in a 4,300-acre tract of forested land for copper, nickel, and the precious metals platinum, palladium, gold, and cobalt.

The U.S. Forest Service owns that tract of land, but PolyMet owns the minerals beneath the surface. The two are negotiating a land exchange, in which PolyMet would add comparable acreage to the Superior National Forest in exchange for the piece with high mineral value.

LaTisha Gietzen

Geologists have known for years that those metals are there, locked up in a formation called the Duluth Complex. Now, the rise of robust economies in the developing world means there's profit to be made in extracting and purifying them. Half a dozen other exploration companies have staked out claims along the geological formation.

The minerals to be mined are used for everything from batteries to catalytic converters to artificial joints.

But this kind of mining is different from iron or taconite mining. The valuable minerals are part of sulfide rock. When that rock is brought to the surface and exposed to air and water, the sulfur in the rock links with hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to form sulfuric acid.

That means water that runs off the piles of waste rock can be so acidic that nothing can live in the streams or wetlands where the water flows. The acid water can also pull heavy metals such as arsenic and manganese out of the ground it flows over, further contaminating the water.

The U.S. EPA calls acid rock drainage an "enormous environmental problem," and said the industry has only developed "rudimentary" techniques to control it.

At the PolyMet site, LaTisha Gietzen said the mine is designed to keep a lot of the sulfur out of the environment. She said PolyMet will actually use some of the sulfur as fuel.

Tailings basin

"It's important for us to collect the sulfur, because it's tied to the metal, we use the sulfur as a fuel for the process and collect and produce the metals," Gietzen said.

But there will be a lot of waste rock. PolyMet plans to process 32,000 tons of ore a day. The waste will be piled up in hills covering several hundred acres next to the mine pit.

Gietzen said, even though most of the rock has very low amounts of sulfur in it, the company will put all the waste rock on synthetic liners and capture the water running off the piles, and treat the water to remove the heavy metals.

"And that's only part of the treatment," she said. "You do that while you're in operation, and then you put a heavy-duty cover over it to eliminate the water coming in contact with the rock."

It's hard to picture a liner that could withstand the pressure and sharp edges of tons and tons of rock.

Lining

"But it's just like a landfill," Gietzen said. "You drive heavy machinery and push garbage into landfills that are similar to what we're doing with our stockpiles."

Still, PolyMet predicts that some amount of acidified water will escape and enter the groundwater system that feeds wetlands and rivers for miles around, all the way to Lake Superior.

The company said that water will meet state standards for drinking water.

But Len Anderson, a retired biology teacher, said a drinking water standard for humans doesn't mean much to the fish. Anderson has made it his life's work to clean up the St. Louis River. His canoeing maps detail the watershed that could be affected by the PolyMet mine -- from the Partridge River and the Embarrass River, 100 miles down the St. Louis River to Lake Superior.

Leonard Anderson

These waters have a lot of mercury in them. Elemental mercury, the kind you played with in high school chemistry lab, doesn't cause much of a problem. But bacteria living in the water can convert that mercury to an organic form, called methyl mercury, and that's when it gets into the fish. Fish advisories warn that children and pregnant women shouldn't eat certain kinds of fish in the St. Louis River and Lake Superior.

Len Anderson said the sulfate in the acidified water is just what the bacteria need to convert more mercury to the methyl mercury form.

"If you give them that extra shot of sulfate, you're going to get an extra shot of methylation," Anderson said. "And that's why the higher the dose upstream, the more damage it does downstream."

Sulfate is also bad for wild rice. Anderson said in his canoe trips he's seen healthy stands of wild rice upstream from the old LTV mine, and stunted growth below it. He said that would only get worse with the higher sulfate runoff from a copper-nickel mine.

Minnesota has never had a copper-nickel mine, but the state does have a little experience with the kinds of problems they create.

Proposed PolyMet site

Just north of the area where PolyMet plans to mine, there's a place where LTV used to mine taconite. It's right on the edge of the same Duluth complex formation that PolyMet wants to exploit. LTV unearthed some sulfide rock and pushed it aside as waste. For decades, the Dunka mine has been leaching acidified water and toxic metals. LTV's bankruptcy has complicated efforts to clean it up.

Len Anderson and other critics say that's just the kind of experience they don't want to see repeated.

"Across the world this type of mining creates a legacy of acid mine drainage and heavy metal seepages," Anderson said. "This company has no experience, and the state of Minnesota has none."

He said the DNR's Lands and Minerals division is used to taconite operations, which pose a far smaller threat to the environment than sulfide mining.

"Lands and Minerals are gung-ho for metallic sulfide mining, but they have no experience except for Dunka, which they have screwed up royally," he said.

The Dunka mine was developed in the early 1960s, before stringent rules were in place. Since then, the current owner has capped the waste rock with plastic liners, and built wetlands to treat the water running off the piles. The DNR says the wetlands do pretty well at capturing most of the contamination.

The Environmental Impact Statement is being written by the Minnesota DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Several cooperating agencies have commented on various drafts of the document.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has said it would like more information about financial assurance -- that's a requirement that PolyMet set aside money to cover any clean-up needed after the mine closes. The EPA also pointed out that the study only documents mitigation for about two-thirds of the damage to wetlands that would occur with the mine.

Scientists for the Fond du Lac, Grand Portage, and Bois Fort bands of Ojibwe have expressed concerns about the impact of possible sulfate pollution on wild rice. They also question how long the water might need to be contained and treated after the mine closes.

The DNR said details about the financial assurance requirement and mine closure won't be known until later -- when PolyMet applies for permits to begin mining.

The DNR said the Environmental Impact Statement is not designed to figure out whether the mine can be done without harming the environment. Rather, it lays out the possible harms, and outlines some ways to prevent or lessen them.

The draft of the environmental review of the project is expected Friday.

The public will have a chance to comment on the study. The normal comment period is 45 days, but many groups have requested more time.

Editor's note: Because of editing/transcription errors, the mine's processing capacity was incorrect, and a paragraph was omitted from an earlier version of this story.

---

Ballot measure to restrict mining advances

By Eartha Jane Melzer 10/16/09

Language for a ballot measure that would restrict mining activities in Michigan has been approved by a state election board, AP reports.

Michigan Save Our Water Committee, the group organizing the ballot initiative, says on its website that it plans to collect 400,000 signatures by May 2010 so that the measure to restrict sulfide and uranium mining can appear on the ballot in November. The group says that the ballot measure is necessary in order to prevent damage to Michigan waters. Sulfide mining is associated with acidic mine drainage.

State departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality have granted permits for a controversial nickel sulfide mine planned by Rio Tinto subsidiary, Kennecott Eagle Minerals, in the Yellow Dog Plain northwest of Marquette.

In February Rio Tinto announced that was placing development of that mine on hold until market conditions improve. Opponents of the planned mine say they hope to build a broad-based grassroots campaign to ban sulfide mining before demand for metals rebounds.

Canoeing the Heart of the Continent
 by Will Hauser

     In commemoration of the centennial of both the Quetico Provincial Park and the Superior National Forest, a 350-mile canoe journey commenced on the second of July in Atikoken, Ontario and proceeded to retrace a major Voyageur trade route.  Composed of members of the Quetico Park, the US Forest Service and environmental groups, the trip entailed 6 legs or sections, each lasting about 3-4 days and composed of 9 paddlers who travelled in a 27-foot, 340 pound cedar-strip/fiberglass Voyageur- style canoe.

     As a Board member of Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness Board I was chosen to participate as Leg leader from Crane Lake, MN to Fall Lake Campground east of Ely. The mission was to visit with as many fellow paddlers as possible regarding issues of current import, such as the increasing danger of invasive species in the region and the need to continually monitor and protect the unique wilderness that we all share and love. We encountered fewer visitors than expected but did have opportunities to talk with all types of folks, from solo kayakers to large Camp and Church groups. Our canoe was, in itself, an attraction, especially when passing other parties on portages. The boat required nearly all of us to pitch in to lift and then carry it.  Some of the “carries” were a half mile and more in length. Occasionally upon encountering upstream rapids decisions were made to “line” the canoe against the current with ropes, sometimes with individual members in chest-deep, fast-flowing water.  Anything to avoid lifting the “beast!!” We were very fortunate to have sunny, calm weather which, on big lakes such as Lake LaCroix and Crooked, was a blessing. Good conversations concerning wilderness and management policy were commonplace, and it was clear that all members of Leg 3 benefited from each others' areas of expertise.  As a group we travelled well and fast, relishing in the speed and experience that each brought to the experience.  Our 98 miles were covered in a little more than 3 days.  We all agreed that experiencing the US-Canadian boundary from a Voyageur's perspective gave new meaning to our efforts at preservation.

     The expedition was sponsored by the Heart of the Continent Partnership, a Canadian/American coalition of land mangers and local stakeholders working together on cross-border projects that promote the economic, cultural and natural health of the lakes, forests and communities in the Ontario/Minnesota border region.

January 2010 State Metallic Minerals Lease Sale

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources announces that plans are being developed to hold the state's 31st sale of metallic minerals exploration and mining leases. The sale is tentatively scheduled for January of 2010.

The areas under consideration for the lease sale cover portions of lands in Aitkin, Benton, Carlton, Itasca, Morrison, Pine and Saint Louis Counties.Some of the lands being considered have been offered in previous metallic minerals lease sales and certain new lands of interest are also being considered for the lease sale.

The lease sale plans are being announced at this time in order to give mining companies, public interest groups and all other interested parties additional time to review the areas under consideration.

Notice of Intent 

Lease Sale Map 

Results of State Metallic Minerals Lease Sale

January 14, 2009

The bid opening for the 30th Metallic Minerals Lease Sale was held January 14, 2009. There were a total of 35 bids. Four of these bids were in Lake County (two by Duluth Metals Corp. and two by Encampment Minerals, Inc.) and 31 were in St. Louis County (six by Agate Lake Resources LLC, eight by Duluth Metals Corp., four by Encampment Minerals, Inc., five by Lehmann Exploration Management, Inc., four by Polymet Mining, Inc., and four by Tech American Inc.) Five of the bidding parties currently hold state metallic minerals leases (Agate Lake Resources LLC is a new bidder).

The bids covered about 6,943 acres in the lease sale area, including about 815 acres in Lake County and 6,127 acres in St. Louis County. Before issuing a lease, the Department conducts a review of bidders to ensure they are technically and financially capable of meeting the terms of the state lease. Recommendations on issuance of leases will be made to the State Executive Council (which consists of the state's five constitutional officers) at its March 11, 2009 meeting.

Summary of Bids Received 

Note: The Division of Lands and Minerals office in Hibbing has maps and reports on Minnesota's mineral resources, as well as drill core and exploration reports available for inspection. To arrange for a time to visit the Hibbing office, please contact Rick Ruhanen at (218) 231-8484. We also recommend our Public Access To Minerals Data web site

Major Public Health Risks Of Metallic Sulfide Mining

The following report is being used as a (very successful) handout at various public events.  Information for the report was compiled by NMW members Jonathon Green and Joy Schochet, with additional contributions by Elanne Palcich and Brad Sagen.  We consider the report, “a work in progress.”  Member suggestions are welcome.

Basic Health Dangers of Sulfide Mining

Metallic sulfide mining (MSM) is an extractive and minerals processing activity that has proven extremely dangerous to public health and safety.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, mining accounts for 40 percent of all toxic waste produced in the U.S.  The most basic danger to public health from MSM is organ and body systems damage caused by mercury (methylmercury) released from acid mine waste drainage and by small amounts of metals released in processing and from mine waste. Children and pregnant women are at special risk.

 Sources of Toxic Waste

The process by which heavy metals can be obtained from low-grade sulfide bearing ores is known as metallic sulfide mining (MSM). But this technology comes with its own price - the release of sulfuric acid and metals during processing and in waste which can then leach into wetlands and groundwater in toxic concentrations.  The proposed NorthMet site of the PolyMet Corporation (near Babbitt, MN) is estimated to create almost 500 million tons of unprocessed ore and waste rock during its projected 20 Year lifespan.  Copper and Nickel are the major heavy metals sought in most of the proposed Minnesota mining projects.  The health effects of copper-nickel mining will be the focus of this report.

 Toxic substances are most often found in the water used in minerals processing and in water after contact with unprocessed ore and waste rock. During the mining process, formerly inert sulfide rock is exposed to air and water and a chemical reaction occurs during which sulfuric acid is formed. This very strong acid, dissolved in water, contaminates both ground and surface waters in the area beneath and surrounding the mine. Sulfuric acid also releases from the rock, trace metals, detrimental to humans as well as wildlife. The toxic waterborne brew likewise contaminates soil, surface and ground waters. Unfortunately,

Acid mine waste may continue to disperse from the mine and waste for unforeseen periods of time. Leakage is still occurring from Roman mines inactive for more than 2000 years!

Water-borne contaminants can also be transported over long distances, even 100 miles or more. No metallic sulfide mining operation in the world has avoided releasing a significant amount of acid mine drainage. Many of these mines are now EPA Superfund sites.

Health Consequences of Contact with Metallic Sulfide Waste

Humans can be affected by acid mine drainage in several ways: by drinking contaminated water, in food (principally fish living in contaminated water),  by contact with contaminated soil.

In the case of NorthMet, most people will encounter toxic compounds in the flesh of fish caught in water contaminated by acid mine drainage.  Assays demonstrate that aluminum, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel and manganese all exceed surface and/or ground water standards at the NorthMet site, even before the commencement of mining operations. Mercury and ammonia are also present in the water. And this is the water that is to be used in the mining process and then released into the environment, enhanced by the toxic by-products of the mining processes. The most dangerous substances likely to be found at the NorthMet site as a result of mining are mercury (methylmercury), sulfuric acid, and the heavy metals of arsenic, copper, lead, and manganese.

Methylmercury: MSM greatly increases the amount of available (naturally-occurring low level) mercury because the sulfuric acid produced during MSM releases it from the rock and because the land disturbance of mining also releases mercury stored in soil, peat, and wetlands. Water leaving the mining site is thus contaminated with both mercury and sulfuric acid, a deadly combination, since the sulfur allows bacteria to convert metallic mercury to methylmercury.

Methylmercury, initially taken up by aquatic plants and animals, builds up in the flesh of the fish which eat them. Consumption of mercury affected fish absorbs much higher than normal levels of mercury.  Methylmercury can remain in soil and water for a very long time and its toxic effects are cumulative. 

The most serious effects of methylmercury poisoning are on the nervous system.  Relatively low amounts of mercury can cause permanent damage, especially to the fetus. Mental retardation, blindness and cerebral palsy are potential conditions affecting children of women who have eaten food containing high levels of methylmercury.   Increases in the number of spontaneous abortions and stillbirths have been reported after exposure to methylmercury.

 Methylmercury is known to cause many neurological and behavioral changes, such as blindness, deafness, and speech difficulties. Internal organs such as the kidneys, stomach and large intestine can also be affected.  In some cases the male reproductive system is affected, and recent studies have reported increased heart disease among males exposed to methylmercury.

    Sulfuric Acid: Acid mine drainage is water contaminated when pyrite, an iron sulfide, is exposed and reacts with air and water to form sulfuric acid and dissolved iron. Some or all of this iron can precipitate to form the red, orange, or yellow sediments in the bottom of streams into which mine drainage flows. Acid runoff further dissolves heavy metals such as copper, lead, and mercury which then contaminate ground and surface waters and soils, including drinking supplies and recreational sites.  Sulfuric acid mist can be released into the air from waterbased minerals processing, and then return as acid rain.

Arsenic: Arsenic is one of the most poisonous substances in existence.   Arsenic can sometimes be found in the pit walls of MSM mines and can be increased by the lime used to neutralize acid mine waste.  Small amounts in drinking water have been linked to cognitive and motor impairment in children and larger amounts to skin damage and circulatory problems in adults.

    Copper: Copper can enter the environment from mining waste. One of the most common adverse effects of copper is gastrointestinal distress. Nausea, vomiting, and/or abdominal pain have been reported.  Copper is also irritating to the respiratory tract. Coughing, sneezing, runny nose, and pulmonary fibrosis have been reported in workers exposed to copper dust.

   Lead: Lead is extremely persistent in both water and soil. It is found in soil and in sediments in aquatic systems. Lead contamination occurs as a result of the mining and processing of ores in which lead is found. During mining operations, lead may be released to land, water, and air. Lead becomes more soluble and therefore more available in acidic water, such as the effluent from MSM. Because lead does not degrade, MSM leaves higher concentrations of lead in the environment, virtually forever.

    Lead adversely affects numerous body systems and impairs health after periods of exposure of only days (acute exposure) or of years (chronic exposure). The severity of symptoms increases with the concentration of lead in the blood. Common symptoms of acute lead poisoning are loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, constipation, difficulty in sleeping, fatigue, moodiness, headache, joint or muscle aches, anemia, and decreased sexual drive. Acute lead poisoning from uncontrolled occupational exposures has resulted in fatalities. Long term overexposure to lead may result in severe damage to the blood-forming, nervous, urinary, and reproductive systems.

Manganese: Manganese is another heavy metal typically released in water as a result of minerals processing.  Small amounts in drinking water have been linked to cognitive (general IQ and memory) and motor impairment in children, and larger amounts to Parkinson ’s disease.

    All of the health problems mentioned above increase over time as water and mine effluents continuously flow over old and new mine tailings, acid rock waste, and other wastes from the mining process.

 The Safety Record of Metallic Sulfide Mining

From a health and environmental safety perspective there has never been a successful MSM mining operation in North America. Not one! The State of Wisconsin now has a law that no new MSM operation may be approved until there is evidence that a mine has operated safely in North America for a period of ten years and that a mine has been closed successfully (no release of toxic materials) for a similar period of time. No MSM mine has met these criteria.

Who Pays?

Who pays when MSM operations and waste treatment and control turn sour as they inevitably do?  Most often not the mining companies that have removed their considerable profits and then declared bankruptcy.  The largest human costs occur in the health, life span, and quality of life of those directly affected by MSM contamination.  These health and health related costs are often difficult to quantify and are seldom reimbursed to any degree. 

Fortunately, advances in health knowledge and in government/public awareness of MSM dangers (typically once a disaster inevitably occurs) have lowered to some degree the direct MSM health effects on citizens.  Such awareness after the fact however, has only increased the costs associated with relocation of residents from contaminated areas, reclamation of affected areas, loss of property values in affected areas, and waste and waste water treatment and control for perhaps ‘perpetuity.   Bankrupt mining companies contribute little if anything to such efforts.  Relocation, reclamation, treatment and control costs are paid overwhelmingly by the American taxpayer.   WHO PAYS?  YOU DO!

News