A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
 Many words have been exchanged regarding the exchange of Minnesota trust fund lands that remain within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCA). Politicians are lamenting the fact that these lands have not been able to generate money for the school trust fund through mining, logging, or leasing, and that this is an insult to all of the school children of the state.
As a matter of clarification, the state Constitution specifies that the Permanent School Fund must be managed for “maximum return,” not that the land itself must produce income. If anyone makes money on school trust lands, the money must then be used to benefit the fund. To draw from this interpretation, the Permanent School Fund (PSF) should have received a percentage of U.S. Forest Service BWCA permit fees. Such a recreational fee was suggested in the 1990s, but rejected by Iron Range legislators, who instead wanted a land exchange in order to more aggressively log what is now Superior National Forest.
Also as a matter of clarification, the majority of school trust lands were sold by the early 1900s for agriculture and development. The PSF is now worth $750 million. Interest from the fund generates $26 per student, out of approximately $9000 allocated (state general fund, property taxes, Federal dollars) per student per year. The PSF contributes less than .3% per student.
In northeast Minnesota, much of the school trust lands are wetlands, forest, or designated Swamp Lands, which were never meant to generate money for the trust fund. While logging, leasing, land sales and iron mining have added to the fund over the years, a new type of mining dominates political discourse. Multinational mining companies are exploring the entire Superior National Forest, between Lake Vermilion and the North Shore, for previously unmarketable low grade copper-nickel sulfide mineralization. Despite the fact that mining of these sulfide ores would leave behind a trail of acid mine drainage, heavy metal pollution, and 99 percent waste rock, politicians grasp onto mining company projections of the financial benefits to the state while ignoring the long-term consequences and costs of perpetual water treatment and extensive and persistent pollution.
Jumping on the land-exchange bandwagon
If state land within the BWCA can be exchanged for federal land in Superior National Forest, that land loses many of its federal protections — including the Weeks Act, which prohibits open pit strip mining; the Endangered Species Act; and other laws. This would facilitate the opening of a sulfide mine district within what is now Superior National Forest.
In 2012, the Minnesota Legislature passed SF 1750, which includes language enabling the federal government to proceed with a land exchange. Eighth District Rep. Chip Cravaack then introduced H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill authorizes a complete land exchange of the state lands held within the BWCA. It also incorporates language from SF 1750 giving priority to land that provides the most opportunity for revenue generation from mining.
H.R. 5544 bypasses and ignores Native American tribal rights and is contrary to laws, policies, and executive orders requiring government-to-government consultation on concerns related to federal actions. The land exchange details are being developed without public participation. The bill specifically nullifies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding the transfer of public lands, which includes environmental review, public input, and the right to legal challenges. It gives no voice to local concerns regarding mineral exploration on private lands, the concerns of those seeking to protect their jobs and property values that depend upon recreational use and scenic quality of Superior National Forest, and those seeking to protect the watersheds of Lake Superior and the BWCA.
Severed mineral rights
Cravaack’s bill also ignores the fact that many of the federal lands have severed mineral rights owned by private mining interests, and therefore will not generate money for the school trust if exchanged. Nor does the bill solve the problem of the state’s severed mineral rights that would remain within the BWCA; these mineral rights could generate further exchanges and the further dismantling of Superior National Forest.
The sole intent of the proposed land exchange is to facilitate the opening of a sulfide mining district on lands bordering the BWCA and extending through what is now Superior National Forest to Lake Superior. Without the stated motive of generating revenue for the trust, there would be no need for a land exchange.
During the late 1990s, the entire Minnesota federal delegation supported a complete land sale of state trust lands within the BWCA to the federal government, with money available from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This would have generated money for the PSF without dismantling Superior National Forest. This proposal fell apart due to opposition from Iron Range legislators who wanted to create jobs through more aggressive logging; the result was neither jobs nor money for the school trust. The same legislators are now willing to trade off both logging and recreational jobs for some speculative number of potential mining jobs in ores of marginal marketability.
H.R. 5544 leads the way for other land exchanges. Such is the case with PolyMet, whose proposed copper-nickel open pits, though not on school trust land, would lie upon what is now Superior National Forest. According to U.S. Forest Service comments in PolyMet’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, “It is the position of the United States that the mineral rights reserved … do not include the right to open pit mine the National Forest lands.” PolyMet would thus need special legislation removing current environmental protections in order to open a strip mine on public land.
H.R. 5544 must have a companion bill in the Senate in order to pass both houses of Congress. It remains to be seen whether Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar will ignore public sentiment and go along with the give-away of Superior National Forest to multinational mining corporations, who will in turn outsource our metals on the global marketplace.
When all is said and done, politicians secretly negotiating land exchange deals will be out of office by the time the true impacts of their legacy becomes apparent. The loss of our public heritage and the burden of toxic pollution and perpetual treatment will rest upon tomorrow’s schoolchildren.
For more information go to www.sosbluewaters.org.
This article was first published in MinnPost 08/16/12
Elanne Palcich, a retired elementary school teacher, lives in Chisholm, Minn.
 Children more valuable than Gold The U.S. Forest Service motto is “Caring for the Land and Serving People.” Its mission is, “to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.”
“Future generations” does not mean the 20-year lifespan of a sulfide mine. After minerals are mined out, surface resources are also depleted; harvestable trees no longer grow, wetlands are buried or full of heavy metals, and fish in affected lakes and rivers are unsafe to eat because of mercury and sulfate levels.
When did the Forest Service forget the founding intent of the agency? According to “The Forest History Society,” the first Forest Service Chief, Gifford Pinchot, had a “great and unrelenting concern for the protection of the American Forests.” It was Pinchot who used the phrase “in the long run” in order “to emphasize that forest management consists of long-term decisions.”
The Forest Service of today pretends that the inherent intent of “minerals exploration” is not to mine the land, at the same time that sulfide-mining companies are announcing their intent to mine. The Forest Service pretends the outcome of such mining is not the destruction of renewable forests, wild rice, and surface water resources – all for the extraction of non-renewable minerals.
Clear and unclear language
Sulfide mining companies are drilling hundreds of boring holes connecting and carrying contaminants through our aquifers. On May 18, Acting Forest Supervisor Timothy A. Dabney said in the cover letter of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permit EIS, Record of Decision: “I appreciate that there are strong feelings about minerals management on the Superior National Forest. I understand that there are concerns about impacts to natural and social resources on the Forest and to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW). I also understand there is interest in the benefits from economic activity associated with minerals exploration.”
Dabney used specific and positive terms, “benefits from economic activity,” to describe the mining position, but non-specific and unclear language to express the numerous critical issues regarding the environmental, public health and economic impacts of mineral exploration; hardly reflective of the “strong feelings” that do exist. If Dabney had used an antonym of “benefits” such as ”harm, loss, damage, injury, or impairment” to frame specific impacts associated with minerals exploration, he may have achieved some balance.
The single item Dabney selected in his cover letter for “a hard look,” is noise impacts from the drilling, which, while important, pale in comparison to the environmental, health and long-term economic issues that deserve a “hard look.”
Minnesotans need proof, not mythical thinking
On May 31, during the Minnesota Executive Council meeting at the State Capitol, the messaging had a similar tone when the council decided to approve its postponed sale of 77 exploratory mineral leases:
“This is about exploratory drilling.” “It is not about mining.” “If you deny the mineral lease sales it will send a message to investors that Minnesota is not mining friendly.” Anyone else see the contradiction?
I came to the conclusion that our agencies are not going to protect our waters because political appointees have an agenda unlike those working in the ranks. The majority of our legislators are not going to protect our waters because corporations lobby with massive amounts of money. Our Executive Council is not going to protect our waters because it is uniformed or misinformed. Not one member mentioned the fact that no matter how much money is put into a “superfund” for cleanup, it has been proven time and time again that financial assurance has been inadequate for sulfide-mining “remediation” —which, by the way, is not the same thing as cleanup.
Not one council member mentioned that Minnesota has been unable to clean up its polluting taconite mines. And no one asked the most important question. What if contamination from sulfide mining cannot be cleaned up? The Executive Council said it could not make decisions based on “what ifs,” but the entire pro-sulfide-mining campaign is based on a mantra that it can be done safely, the biggest “what if” of all.
Guilt is a powerful tool of manipulation
“We all use metals.” A message repeatedly used by members of the Executive Council, and campaigned on by mining representatives as the reason we should sacrifice our waters. “We all use metals” is a true statement used for the wrong reason. The United States has long been oblivious to its gluttonous use of the world’s resources, an attitude Minnesota mining is encouraging – and exploiting – rather than being drivers for change. Remember their fat-baby cartoon showing all the metals a baby devours in its lifetime? Not only is it shocking, it also lacks any mention of conservation possibilities. It is strictly an industry self-serving ad for consumption.
“Copper has an infinitely recyclable life … . Each year in the U.S.A., nearly as much copper is recovered from recycled material as is derived from newly mined ore. … The U.S. does not depend on foreign copper … we are completely self-sufficient.” (Copper Development Association Inc.)
You would never know it after listening to the sulfide-mining lobbyists in Minnesota. These are the same folks who hid the fact that our metals would be sold on the open market, while simultaneously expounding on “national security” as their rationale for mining.
Rep. Carly Melin is still spreading the lie, “Those [our minerals] are things that China cannot take away from us, no matter how hard they try,” Melin said at the Minnesota Democratic Convention (Alexandria Echo Press).
If our minerals are mined – unless it is outbid – China already has them.
Minnesota’s legacy
The Iron Range has a proud mining heritage, a message reiterated by the Executive Council. That does not mean northern Minnesota cannot choose a different heritage for its future – without denigrating the past of the Iron Range. From time immemorial countries and people have reinvented themselves.
What we face today is a decision about whether to allow sulfide mining in water-rich Minnesota, one of the worst places on the planet to experiment. The idea that Minnesota has to choose a “balancing act” between water pollution and mining is a sell-out of our waters. And us. It also does not address water usage, another sell-out: Minntac alone “needs ten times as much water each day as the greater Duluth area” (U.S. Steel). What astronomical amount would the proposed sulfide-mining projects add to that load, to the contaminated waters released?
The best thing Minnesota could do for itself, and the rest of the world, is to hold sulfide-mining companies accountable by enacting prove-it-first legislation. All of us could start focusing our attention on attracting jobs that preserve our wealth of water – companies that will add to our quality of life, not extract our health along with our metals.
Our children were forgotten
It angers me, when considering the Hardrock EIS and the Executive Council meeting, that no one in positions of power seriously considered the looming health impacts to our children from proposed sulfide mining. It is always about money and a comparatively small number of jobs in a rapidly automating industry.
How much is a damaged child worth? Mining companies in the 1970s and 80s did such calculations. When faced with faulty equipment at Bunker Hill, corporative board members calculated how much they would have to pay per damaged child based on a similar Texas lawsuit, decided it was worth it to continue mining, reaped their millions, and then paid a pittance to some Idaho families – whose children were among hundreds of children poisoned.
Are we not doing the same thing, minus the actual calculations? We already have 10 percent of newborns in the Lake Superior basin with toxic levels of mercury in their blood. The Lake Superior basin includes the Iron Range, its taconite mines, and the coal-fired power plants that run them. Operating on variances, they spew sulfates into our waters to orchestrate mercury methylation. Methyl mercury is the toxic form of mercury that bioaccumulates in fish, in us when we eat fish, and in our unborn babies. Taconite mines are the biggest source of sulfate pollution in northern Minnesota. Think of the implications for proposed sulfide mining. Our babies are the canaries of the mining industry, and we are ignoring the ramifications.
We tell expectant mothers not to eat fish, blaming the victims. Pat McCann, the research scientist who conducted the study for the Minnesota Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency, reportedly said, “Babies don’t eat fish” (Star Tribune). We have all been conditioned to avoid mercury-laden fish, to keep our children inside when air pollution is high, and to protect them from any number of environmental toxins. Wisely — but the message is that we are to blame if we do not. Corporations releasing the toxins have denied their responsibility, shifted the blame, and we let them get away with it. We have a right to clean air, a right to eat the fish we catch without damaging our unborn children, and a right to demand protection.
Back to the future
Which ironically brings us back full circle, back to the beginnings of the Forest Service. Pinchot “served as chief with great distinction, motivating and providing leadership in the management of natural resources and protection of the national forests. He continued as forester until 1910, when he was fired by President Taft in a controversy over coal claims in Alaska” (The Forest History Society).
Today, we know the effects of coal mining and coal-fired electricity on the health of all of us, especially our children. We cannot plead ignorance, or use the semi-truth of “it was another era” to excuse mining industry practices that cause pollution. We also know that the sulfide mining record of today is dismal.
So ask yourself, “How much is my child worth?”
This article was first published in MinnPost 06/25/12
C.A. Arneson lives on a lake in the Ely area.
 Take Action – Call Senators Franken and Klobuchar to Stop the Land Swap!
Recently, Rep. Cravaack introduced H.R.5544 to expedite the exchange of an unknown amount of federally-protected Superior National Forest land for 86,000 acres of state school trust lands contained within the BWCA. If passed, this legislation would open tens of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat to new toxic sulfide mining proposals and other development. Federal ownership carries with it a variety of critical legal protections, and all of these important safeguards would be lost on any National Forest land included in this exchange. In addition, the bill bypasses environmental review and public involvement.
Then, let us know you made the call!
Senator Franken: (202) 224-5641 and (651) 221-1016
Senator Klobuchar: (202) 224-3244 and (612) 727-5220
Learn more and send a letter here, and thanks for taking action today.
 Mr. Tom Coombe, Editor,The Ely Echo, Ely, MN
Dear Mr. Coombe: 30 July, 2012
I have just received my copy of the July-August issue of Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine (shown here, of the exploration drill rig in Birch Lake)
with an editorial and an article by John Myers on metallic sulfide mining in the forests and lakes of northeastern
Minnesota. As a homeowner in the area I was gratified to have them write about this issue but I was appalled
at how little attention was given to the very troublesome nature of much of the information available about this
mining endeavor.
For example, the article mentions the possible value of the minerals in the Duluth formation but
neglects to mention that the concentration of copper and other metals is extremely low, 1% or less by weight.
This means that for every ton of ore removed, only 20 pounds of metal will be obtained. The other 1980 pounds
are waste, which must be disposed of into the environment and in addition, the disposal is independent of that
of the overburden. But this is an oversimplification. The processes of obtaining copper from ore from open-pit
or underground mines involves pulverizing the ore to the texture of talcum powder. This increases the volume
of the waste enormously, making it necessary to store the waste above ground in tailing ponds. So the premise
that underground mines will be less polluting doesn’t apply to these mining methods.
But even this too is an oversimplification as both the ore and its wastes are complexed with sulfide. No matter what efforts at
remediation are taken, sulfide will react with water to generate sulfuric acid which will leach from tailing ponds
or other storage methods to contaminate ground water, wet lands, streams, rivers and lakes. Nowhere on earth
has metallic sulfide mining been done in a manner such as to avoid environmental contamination.
Why should we believe any mining company who says their methods of metallic sulfide mining will not
lead to environmental degradation? And the fact that the proposed mine sites abut the Superior National Forest
and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area adds even more anxiety about these endeavors.
The article mentions Mr. Skradski’s comments on mining saving Ely, perhaps he should have
considered Virginia, Minnesota, with three mines operating and a community nonetheless in economic distress.
The notion that this project will provide 5000 permanent jobs leads to the question what overall size
of operation will require a staff of this size? And imagine what area of tailing ponds will be required for this vast
an operation, and how much pollution will be generated by it.
The companies who propose to do this work are not US companies but have foreign ownerships, so
the profits will leave the US. The proposed mines have a life-span of approximately 20 years. The land and
water that they will damage have lifetimes measured in centuries. It is not a worthwhile trade off. We have the
forests, wet lands and water now, they generate unmeasurable profit in the form of atmospheric modulation
by absorbing carbon dioxide, producing habitats for countless animals and wilderness areas for us (humans)
to appreciate and utilize. Who will vacation at a mine site?
We don’t know the true value of the minerals – what happens when we discover alternatives, or
increase copper recycling or other countries provide the minerals at lower cost than we do? It’s a gamble the
outcome of which is clear – the environment loses, the organisms in the environment (including us) lose, the
state loses resources that will take thousands of years to recover if ever. The gain is short term and the profits
accrue to others.
Sincerely yours,
Jonathan Green
Ely, Minnesota 55731
 It’s been posited in print, online and from many a barstool that we all support mining, at least if we drive a car, ride a bicycle, use electricity, computer, phone or even an axe. Logically, by living in a house, owning furniture or heating with wood, we support the logging industry. Continuing down this inclusive road of reasoning, we all support clean water, too. No matter how often we brush, flush or shower, we all eat and drink fairly frequently. If we don’t, it’s not for long.
As human beings, we have developed needs for the products of mining and logging. As living organisms, we don’t have a choice about the need for clean water. We cannot sacrifice this life-supporting substance and its ecosystem if we intend to continue our own existence.
Mining companies have promised to “do things right this time.” But promises, like apologies, are worth only as much as the behavior that follows them. Promises to reverse previous reprehensible behavior are automatically suspect. (“Honest, Mom, I won’t wash Furry in the bathtub anymore.”) The recipients of such promises are wise to require proof that not only is that better behavior possible, but that it will be implemented consistently before trust will be extended. We demand just that from our children, and impose consequences when backsliding occurs. Our current situation is not so different. If the mining companies want our resources and our people, then we – those same people – must have proof, not promises, that they will take care of us, the land and the water, now and into our grandchildren’s future.
Demand that proof so we can have jobs, clean mines AND clean water.
Tommyknocker
 ELY, Minn. – On Feb. 29, according to WDIO.com, there was “Mining Support in St. Paul.” Unfortunately, it neglected to report the rest of the story.
“Ely Mayor Roger Skraba said his community supports mining [copper-nickel] and has passed a resolution to show its support. ‘We have people coming to our community, who are not from our community, telling us what to do. I want to tell those people: Thanks for the advice, but I think we know what we want and we know how to do it.’ ”
WDIO could have reported the entire story. I assume Mayor Skraba was referring to either the resolution unanimously passed by the Ely City Council or the resolution passed by the St. Louis County Commissioners. The seven commissioners passed it by one vote, 4-3, hardly an affirmation, and an amended version that basically supported the environmental review and permitting process.
WDIO could also have reported that, in February, Democratic caucuses in townships surrounding Ely passed sulfide-mining resolutions, either to not permit sulfide mines “if they threaten” our waters, or asking for “prove it first” legislation. Morse Township, Fall Lake Township, Winton, Unorganized 64-12, Eagles Nest Township, Breitung Township, Stony River Township all passed resolutions. Even the Ely precinct was divided; with the sulfide mining resolution defeated 30 to 26. Four votes.
Hardly unanimous
These results were not an endorsement by a community, despite the implication having been made that the support was an essentially unanimous one. Hardly.
The people at these caucuses were all members of their community. They live there, they work there, they support or own local businesses, they volunteer and support the schools, they vote, and they pay their taxes. To leave their opinions out of the discussion – more than half of the vote – is only telling half of the story.
Coincidently, also on Feb. 29, sled dog teams kicked off from Ely and Grand Marais, relaying to deliver sulfide-mining petitions with thousands of signatures to Gov. Mark Dayton at the Minnesota State Capitol. They are due to arrive at the Capitol on the morning of March 8, carrying petitions asking the governor and the Legislature for protection of Minnesota’s waters – all representing community voices expecting to be heard.
‘We know how to do it’
WDIO quoted several other local officials. “’We’ve been mining on the Range for 130 years. We know how to do it,’ said Sen. Dave Tomassoni.” That is why the mining industry in Minnesota has been fined over $700,000 since 2004, and now has water and air contamination it cannot clean up.
“Rep. Carly Melin said, ‘We all use these metals and there’s no reason to get these from a foreign country.’ ” Glencore would be selling them on the open market and we would still be buying them back – if we were not outbid in the process.
“St. Louis County Board Chair Keith Nelson said, ‘If it can’t be done safely here, it can’t be done safely anywhere.’ ” That is the point; sulfide mining has not been done safely anywhere, including in the United States. To play those kinds of odds is illogical.
WDIO ended with the following quote: “Rep. Tom Rukavina added, ‘When the Range hums, the state hums. It would be wise for the entire state to get behind us.’ ”
Maybe the entire state wants to hum a different tune, including the Arrowhead of Minnesota. Maybe it is time we all tried humming in unison. Together we can find ways to improve the economic picture without harming what Minnesotans unabashedly love: our most valuable natural resource – our waters.
C.A. Arneson lives on a lake in the Ely area
The Other Half…MORE LIKE THIS
In Minnesota, the price of metals is damage to our water
In Minnesota, ‘prove it first’ legislation is crucial for the protection of our waters
Antofagasta didn’t do it right in Chile, but says sulfide mining in Minnesota will be different — trust us
Sulfide-mining doublespeak: Sulfide mining will not pollute — just don’t put that in writing!
In Minnesota, legislators wage war on international lake district
Citizens Petitions against Sulfide Mining presented in person to Governor Dayton
Frank Moe and his Huskies
The Race To Protect Minnesota from
Acid Mine Drainage
SLED DOGS TO ST. PAUL – Sunday and Monday events in Duluth, Thursday at the Capitol.
Reminder –
March 4, Duluth Lester Park Event 3-4 pm
(Lester Park Pavilion 61st Ave. East and Superior St)
March 5, West Duluth Munger Inn Event 9-10 am
(Williard Munger Inn, 7408 Grand Ave.)
March 8, St. Paul Capital Event 10:30-11:30 am
(75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.)
Former State legislator and dog sled musher Frank Moe is planning a dog sled run from northeastern Minnesota to St. Paul. Frank Moe and his dog team will deliver petitions from across the state to the Capitol on March 8th. Concerned citizens, local businesses, and many environmental organizations and groups are involved in the fight to save our beloved Arrowhead Region from copper-nickel sulfide mining, a dangerous new type of mining never before permitted in Minnesota.
 The following article is by Jennifer Martin-Romme of the Duluth based Zenith City Weekly
Eight drinking wells in northern St. Louis County were found to contain levels of manganese in excess of up to 47 times the state health limit, according to a January 2009 memo from Barr Engineering, a Minneapolis–based environmental consulting company, to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The memo indicates that in December 2008 and January 2009, at the request of the MPCA and the DNR, Barr Engineering, whose clients include the fuel and mining industries, sampled residential wells within a 28–square–mile vicinity of mining waste on the Iron Range.
The company tested 15 wells for various metals. Some, like aluminum and manganese, exceeded standards; others, including arsenic and copper, did not.
Minnesota’s recommended limit for manganese in drinking water is 100 micrograms per liter. The 15 sampled wells ranged from 0.66 to 4,710. The other seven wells that exceeded standards had levels of 284, 432, 578, 583, 603, 654, and 1,400.
Manganese is a naturally occurring mineral, often found in iron deposits and thus a byproduct of extracting iron ore. In small doses, it is an essential dietary nutrient, but exposure to high amounts has been linked to “chronic manganese poisoning” since the 19th century.
A 1989 study of adult subjects by the University of Patras in Greece found that as little as 50 micrograms per liter in drinking water was progressively correlated with cognitive impairment and neurological symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease.
A study last year at the University of Montreal found a six–point drop in IQ scores among children exposed to less than 400 micrograms per liter. The children’s verbal, visual–spatial, and concept–formation abilities were reduced by “a very big difference.”
Due to the sensitive nature of this situation, the Zenith is withholding the names of the well owners and any information that could be used to identify them, including nearby towns and the name of the mine.
None of the state officials interviewed knows whether anyone has continued to use the affected wells or if they have experienced symptoms of manganese poisoning.
According to Stuart Arkley of the DNR, who was a recipient of the 2009 memo, the first round of well testing was conducted to gather baseline information for environmental review of future mining projects.
The test results will be included in the Environmental Impact Statement for PolyMet, a proposed copper/nickel mine on the Iron Range that is not yet in operation.
Arkley says his task, as a project manager in the DNR’s Environmental Review Unit, was to make sure documentation of the testing was sent to the appropriate technical staff and to relay any questions or concerns back to Barr Engineering, but “not to understand every issue in the documents.”
Barr Engineering is one of PolyMet’s primary contractors. Arkley doesn’t feel it’s a conflict of interest that Barr also conducted these tests because “the documents come here and we have technical staff to review them and ask questions if something doesn’t look right.”
He says the DNR provided no written response to the well test results. “There may have been some questions, but we did not send written comments to Barr. But nor did we provide a written approval of the [2009] memo. I do not recall any issues with the analytical methods used by Barr. Typically, when we have significant comments on a document we will ask for a revised copy that addresses those comments. That was not necessary here.”
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) sets the state guideline for manganese, but the agency has no authority to enforce it, according to Pam Shubat and Kate Sande with the Health Risk Assessment Unit.
The 2009 memo does not indicate that anyone at the Department of Health was ever notified about the testing or given the results. Shubat and Sande said they had not seen the memo and are not familiar with its contents.
Even if they had been, the MDH health risk limits for chemicals in drinking water, which the agency is directed by state law to develop, function only as recommendations. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act doesn’t regulate manganese at all.
“We might get involved if there’s an enforcement issue involved,” Shubat says. “If we’re consulted and asked to participate, we might write a letter to someone with a well that needs attention.”
But there’s no regulation of residential drinking wells in Minnesota. “A well owner is responsible for their own well unless there’s contamination [by an outside party], in which case the MPCA may step in.”
Filtering is the best option for decontamination. “Manganese is in the groundwater,” says Shubat. “Once you find it, you would have to filter the water…It might enter from rock or from an industrial source [such as an underground storage tank, in which case the manganese would dissipate]. It won’t disappear if it’s coming from rock.”
Shubat and Sande don’t recall any well advisories on the Iron Range during the time period of the tests. Not having reviewed the data, they declined comment as to whether the levels found might be concerning.
“When we develop a health risk limit,” Shubat says, “we’re saying it’s safe to drink that water. That’s the value people can drink safely. We don’t create an upper limit. There’s only uncertainty above that.”
Generally speaking, MDH’s health risk limits are set protectively low and they are more concerned about high manganese exposure with infants, especially those fed reconstituted formula. “We still believe adults can tolerate higher levels.”
Last year, the agency considered raising the manganese standard to 300, which is the health risk limit set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, after reviewing the scientific research and in response to public outcry, the recommendation in Minnesota remains 100 micrograms per liter.
“If I were the well owner, I’d probably be concerned,” says Richard Clark, a hydrologist with the MPCA, to whom Barr Engineering’s results were addressed.
However, Clark says his role was purely in the context of environmental review for future mining projects, not epidemiology. “We got a request from individuals in the area to have this done. I think there was general concern they were near [mining waste]. We contacted PolyMet and asked if they’d be interested in doing it.”
All the well owners in the area were contacted and “the ones that allowed [the testing] are the ones shown here.” PolyMet would otherwise have no authority to test residential wells.
“More than likely,” says Clark, “[the manganese levels found] were the result of local conditions around the individual wells [such as well construction, the availability of oxygen, etc.]…I think we looked at the results and decided which were affected and which were likely not affected.”
The MPCA has built additional wells near the mining waste “to more directly monitor the effects.” The results will be included in PolyMet’s Environmental Impact Statement, which is expected to be released this spring.
Clark doesn’t know if the well test results were provided to the Health Department nor whether the well owners have been evaluated for symptoms of manganese poisoning.
He is not aware of any agency policy that would prompt further intervention by the MPCA. “The results were provided to them. An explanation letter was sent by PolyMet’s consultant…In general, yes, [the explanation was provided in plain language].”
The Barr Engineering memo indicates that copies of its lab reports were provided to each well owner, but these reports, which are attached to the memo, are virtually incomprehensible without additional information.
Letters were also sent from PolyMet to the 15 well owners, providing the levels of each chemical tested for and a general description of the applicable standards. However, there is no mention of any potential health effects if those standards are exceeded.
The well with the highest manganese was retested six months later, “because of the values seen,” says Clark. This was due to high values overall, not just manganese.
A September 2009 letter from PolyMet to this well owner is very similar to the first notification letters. “The water in your well did not exceed any primary drinking water standard. However, the manganese content of your water was above the secondary drinking water standard and the [MDH] health risk limit.”
The “secondary drinking water standard” is a non–enforceable guideline from the EPA for “aesthetic effects.” For manganese, it is 50 micrograms per liter, mostly to prevent stains on clothing and household appliances.
A “primary standard” would be legally enforceable, except there is no legally enforceable standard for manganese at all—only the EPA’s guideline of 300 and the Health Department’s recommended level of 100—both of which are well below the levels found in this well.
In January 2009, the sample tested at 4,710; by July, it was down to 1,400. Based on Shubat’s statements, this would suggest the dissipation associated with an external source, rather than from the surrounding bedrock.
“It’s more complex than that,” says Clark. “When you look at some of the other parameters, you get a better picture of where the water from [the waste] is flowing.”
In its 2009 memo, Barr Engineering concluded, “The reason for the highly variable observed manganese concentrations is unknown,” dismissing the possibility that the nearby mine could be related because higher contaminant levels did not directly correlate with each well’s proximity to mining waste.
However, there is a consistent connection when factoring in the type of well in addition to its proximity. The highest manganese levels were found closest to the mine, in wells dug into “glacial drift”—a shallow layer of gravel, sand, or clay, saturated with groundwater.
Of the 15 wells tested, eight are in glacial drift. Only three of those did not exceed manganese limits, but they were either at a distance from the mine and/or separated from it by a body of water. Lower levels were also found closer, but only in wells dug into bedrock.
“I believe [Barr Engineering’s] conclusions make sense,” says Clark. “What’s ultimately going on will come from the monitoring wells. In order to make assessments, you need to look at the parameters…The manganese is subject to local conditions in and around the well. Without knowing more about the well, I can’t hazard a guess.”
St. Louis County no longer offers residential well testing and can only direct inquiries to private labs. More information on wells is available through the Well Management Division of the Health Department, 218–723–4642.
Thanks go to the Zenith City Weekly and to the author Jennifer Martin-Romme for this excellent article, without which we might believe the rhetoric of Minnesota politicians and agencies promoting “Minnesota’s STRONG regulations” for protecting it’s citizens and the world. You can read more or sign up for delivery by subscription at Zenith City Weekly
 Citizens beginning to meet on Copper Mining in MN Three major steps! Watch the Videos below.
Three major victories occurred for people in Northeastern Minnesota in October. Although these victories are very significant they are only temporary. We only have a few months to slow the Mining/MN Political juggernaut that thinks Copper mining is the only alternative for Minnesota.
October 9, 2011 Stony River Township Meeting Video The citizens of Stony River Township met to learn more about Non-Ferrous mining and to sing the unanimously passed Moratorium.
MN Executive Council Postpones 77 mining leases Video The Minnesota Executive Council, primarily at the insistence of Governor Dayton, responding to the outrage of citizens directly effected by drilling and some would say heavy handy policies and antiquated land lease laws that favor mining over citizens, correctly, but only temporarily held off on issuance of 77 mining leases.
October 22, 2011 Eagles Nest Township Meeting Video Dan Humay, a supervisor in Eagles Nest Township, gave an impassioned plea and inspiring presentation in support of the Stony River Township Moratorium and encouraged citizens in attendance to act now before it was too late.
 Don’t stifle views of those who worry about new mining impact...printed in the Ely Timberjay Sept. 19, 2011...image was not included in original printing, we added that. In Sunday’s Mesabi Daily News, Bill Hanna, headlined his front page with the news article, “Never Mined.” From his bully pulpit Mr.Hanna derided the North House Folk School for presenting a play against PolyMet and scolded the IRRRB for giving funding to a community arts group that would dare question the copper/nickel/precious metals proposal in our backyard. Tony Sertich and David Dill stated this group had a right to present an anti-sulfide mining play, but Mr. Sertich also stated that funding to this community group “might be something to look at in the future.”
When freedom of expression is held ransom, like the debt ceiling was, because persons in the media and our elected officials use their power and money to silence the opposition it is time that they be reminded that people on the Range are informed, intelligent and have an obligation and right to present the other side of the story.
This is not an anti-mining stand. My father worked in the Soudan Underground Mine and relatives and friends are employed by the taconite mines today. But we also hunt, fish and run businesses that are based on the tourist industry economy in Nothern Minnesota. This is a stand based on facts that sulfide mining in our backyard is a very toxic idea for people, wildlife and our environment. We are a state of 10,000 lakes; not 10,000 mines. We have a diverse economy and know that to permit damage to our lakes, rivers and water through sulfide mining is not an intelligent choice. A vision for the IRRRB, our elected officials and the media is to respect and protect the diversity of this area and be a guardian of all its natural resources—not a destroyer.
It is time for those who use the bully pulpit in their news outlets and the elected officials of all government to take notice. See what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and across the United States where the infrastructure of our middle class— the teacher, the policeman, the firefighter, the nurse— is being destroyed. This is not only a sulfide mining problem in our backyard; it is an attack and undermining of our democratic way of life. You can distort or omit the facts. You can refuse to print or edit our point of view. You have one vote. We have one vote. We have a voice! We are informed! We are many!
Cathy Carlson
Lake Vermilion
Tower, Minn.
|
|
