Cleveland-Cliffs & Northshore Mining, for shame

Where the rain never falls and the sun never shines,
It's dark as a dungeon, way down in the mines.

Nothing, but nothing, epitomizes the greed of big corporations more than the innocuous-sounding "surface mining" that is destroying Appalachia just to pull more tons of filthy coal from the mountains. Filthy coal, that sends megatons of carbon emissions into the air along with other pollutants, filthy coal that Minnesota Power burns at Taconite Harbor and releases into our airshed, filthy coal that could within a decade or two choke all of us trying to breathe. This we knew, or at least True knew.
But the merger of Cleveland-Cliffs with the Appalachian coal mining company with the Orwellian name of Alpha Natural Resources makes us accomplices. Last year alone in Kentucky, 50 million tons of coal were dredged from the surface of the Appalachian mountain range by, among other methods, cutting off the tops of the mountains and throwing them down into the valleys. The mountaintops are called "overburden." I shit you not.
Compare this with the five million tons of magnetite pellets being produced annually by Northshore Mining, a subsidiary of Babbitt-based Cleveland-Cliffs, now to be known as Cliffs Natural Resources, "A Leading Diversified Mining and Natural Resources Company."
It is time for residents of northern Minnesota to admit their culpability. The mountaintop leveling now supported by the merged company surely ranks right up their with the proposed Polymet copper-nickel mine that will create dead zones in our watershed.
Where is your outrage, North Shore citizens? What will you leave of earth, water and air to your children? Here's a link to the Duluth Tribune story that conveniently glosses over the devastating truth:

Duluth News Tribune | Cleveland-Cliffs announces merger with Appalachian coal company in $10 billion deal

Politics is war

Recently the media (both papers and WTIP) have nearly peed their pants over the visit by Governor Plenty-for-the-Rich. His speech was broadcast on WTIP. He was featured in photos with his oh-so-adorable wife and kid.
At the same time there were stories about the local delegates to the Dim and Repug annual love-fests.
Hey, politics is no longer a ball game, if it ever in fact was. Politics is war, at least since the 1980's when a group of Machiavellan plotters later known as "neocons" hatched up a battle plan to take over the US government permanently. Soon they also hooked up with the then-toothless "Moral Majority" and combined the advantages of wealth, power and a supposed channel to God to build a permanent one-party government. A government not of the people, by the people and for the people, but of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.
They have all-but succeeded. They have bought two presidential elections and brought to power a fool who is also a willing tool of his ultra-right, ultra-rich buddies from Yale and Texas oil.
They have decimated the middle class by outsourcing jobs and attacking unions, made college education an unaffordable luxury for many, slashed public school funding, pandered to big corporate interests to the detriment of health and well-being, created new classes of homeless people and near-poor, stacked the courts with their far-right-wing appointees, squandered the future of our children with overwhelming debt for their stupid wars-for-oil while also destroying thousands of young people's lives who idealistically wanted to serve their country after 9/11, made us the most hated people in the world, allowed and even encouraged big corporations to take over the media so the people would never get the real news, condoned torture and spying on all Americans, created a new Big Brother called "Homeland Security" that makes J. Edgar Hoover look like a pussycat, and tried to dismantle Social Security and Medicare.
Perhaps worst of all, these rich-and-powerful morons have probably doomed the earth to unmitigated disaster by denying global warming despite the melting of Artic permafrost, promoting environmental devastation in ever more invasive mining and lifting of regulations to protect air, land and water. This list actually only scratches the surface of the terrible damage done to the world by the neocons and their tame but hateful Religious Right.
This is war, war against the American people, waged by the party that controls the White House, the judiciary and even the Congress despite the 2006 election mandate to throw the suckers out. Pelosi, Reid, and the Blue Dog Dims don't have the stomach or the gumption for the hardball tactics that they COULD employ to bring democracy back to America.
Barack Obama has been voting party-line lately, too, for funding the Iraq war for another year, for giving amnesty to the big telecoms that were spying on our emails and phone calls...
I grew up in a world where the parties jousted and fenced, but had basic respect for the two-party system, the checks & balances of the Constitution, and yes, Truth, Justice and the American Way.
I was a "Nixonette" who later came to love JFK. I went to DFL bean feeds. It was all good fun in those days, until one party started assassinating the charismatic leaders of the other party.
Now it is war. Gov. Plenty has reduced taxes on the rich and replaced them with horrendous fees and sales taxes paid by the poor. He has refused to rebuild our failing infrastructure and bears direct responsibility for the 35W bridge collapse. He is angling for a high place in a McCain administration. He's a snake and also a seller of snake oil and he's looking out for Number One with every photo-op.
-True

Save Our Blue Waters to me

show details 10:38 AM (9 hours ago)

Reply

"the rest of the story" about the sulfide copper-nickel mining industry

being proposed for northeastern Minnesota.

Info for; HR 4292: Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007

http://www.sosbluewaters.org/oberstar.htm

To: http://www.twoharborsmn.com/
Subject: sulfide mining

Lake County Chronicle

An inquisitive group of about 45 Lake and St. Louis County residents gathered last week at the Two Harbors Community Center, anxious to hear "the rest of the story" about the sulfide copper-nickel mining industry being proposed for northeastern Minnesota.

Local mass media has painted a rosy picture of jobs and economic growth coming from this new kind of mining. Not surprisingly absent in the mining propaganda are the grim realities of the toxic pollution problems inherently associated with the mining of sulfide ore bodies and the legacy of public-funded clean up costs to taxpayers, which number in the billions of dollars nationwide. Sulfide mining, also called non-ferrous metallic minerals mining and copper-nickel mining, is "not your father's mining". Its environmental impact greatly exceeds that of the iron and taconite mining we have all grown up with. Sulfide ore bodies, in which trace amounts of valuable metals are embedded, once exposed to air and water, generate sulfuric acid. Once this chemical process (Acid Mine Drainage) starts, it cannot be reversed and will continue for hundreds, and more likely thousands of years. Sulfuric acid runoff from the massive volume of waste rock piles and strip mine pits will leach into our surface waters and groundwater if not effectively controlled and treated. This kind of control has not yet been demonstrated. A metallic sulfide mine has never failed to pollute its watershed.

Our good neighbors in Wisconsin have found an effective control measure for sulfide mining. They have legislatively enacted a moratorium that will permit sulfide mining only after it has been demonstrated that it has been done elsewhere safely for 10 years and that such a mine has been closed for 10 years without any negative aftereffects. So far no company has been able to meet the criteria of this law. Minnesota has not yet adopted this kind of caution to protect our environment.

A new Canadian mining company, PolyMet is presently in the permitting process with Minnesota's DNR, including an environmental impact statement (EIS) which is due out soon, to be followed by a brief period of public input. The proposed mine site is just outside of Babbitt MN, and surrounded by the Partridge River, a Lake Superior tributary. If PolyMet is allowed to proceed, it will set off a ripple effect, with many other mining companies ready to pursue prospects of their own. These new mining prospects will expand mining into new areas of the Arrowhead country, including the Spruce Road area near Birch Lake, less than 1 mile from the BWCA. Settled areas such as the Bassett-Fairbanks community, could be next, with more than 9000 acres of 50-year mineral rights leases recently purchased from the state in that area.

Even though our iron mining industry is healthy, our politicians are anxious to bring even more non-diversified non-sustainable industrial growth to Minnesota's Arrowhead. Rep. James Oberstar has introduced a bill in the House to facilitate the sale of 6,700 acres of Superior National Forest land to PolyMet, without waiting for the results of the EIS, and without possibility of appeal of its authority or provisions. The bill, HR4292, sets a dangerous precedent of sale of such a large parcel of national forest land to a foreign, private industry without public input.

North Shore Watershed Watch and ACTNOW, the groups which organized this meeting, believe that the environmental problems such an industry would bring to our water-rich environment are not being adequately addressed or shared with the public. After viewing the evening's presentation, most of those in attendance, including residents who traveled from Brimson and Ely areas, agreed and were looking for ways to express their anger and frustration.

Other questions coming from the group which should be considered in deciding about the future of this industry in our state were: how long are the jobs generated locally likely to last? Do domestic or foreign companies stand to profit most from extraction of these minerals? Where are the markets for the minerals – we all use them, but would these be used domestically or go to China, India, etc.? What is the rush – the minerals aren't going anywhere are they? There will still be a market for them after however many years it takes to find out if they can be mined safely. Has there been an energy budget proposed for this industry? Given the rising cost and diminishing supply of energy, will it have to compete with the taconite industry for energy? And the taconite industry requires clean water – will they be working at cross purposes on that front too? You mean, I can't run over a cattail with my ATV, but a Canadian mining company can destroy a thousand acres of wetlands? So, this is like a grand experiment with our forests and water resources?

Will the financial benefit to today's generation be at the expense of tomorrow's generation? Only our descendants' will be able to answer that question.

Todd Ronning

Two Harbors MN

Oppose Rep. Oberstar's HR 4292 Bill

Oberstar's HR 4292 is a "sellout": Selling Superior Forest land to Polymet for its disastrous proposed copper-nickel-palladium mine near Hoyt Lakes and within the Duluth area watershed:

Please link to this Duluth Tribune story by John Myers, who has written extensively on this issue, and let Rep. Oberstar know this sale of forest land to a private mining company with intent to destroy the environment is unacceptable.

-True

On the Internet

Oppose Rep. Oberstar's HR 4292 Bill Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007 This bill would sell 6,700 acres of Superior National Forest public land to PolyMet, a Canadian mining company. The main purpose of this bill is to avoid Federal environmental protections for public land near the BWCAW!

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/rss.cfm?id=67963&freebie_check&CFID=43336610&CFTOKEN=22072022&jsessionid=8830129b032e39576a23

Bill sells Superior National Forest land to Polymet

John Myers Duluth News Tribune
Published Friday, June 06, 2008

Legislation in the U.S. House would sell 6,700 acres in the Superior National Forest to the Polymet copper company without an environmental assessment or public input.

The federal land is precisely where the company hopes to mine for copper, nickel, platinum and palladium as early as next year.

It would be the first major sale of Superior Forest land to a private company.

The bill, HR 4292, introduced by U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., has not advanced in any committee.

Without legislation, the Forest Service is prohibited from selling any land to a private party, though exceptions are made for tracts smaller than 10 acres, said Jim Sanders, supervisor of the Superior National Forest.

Instead, the Forest Service usually trades land with property owners. The Forest Service has been negotiating with Polymet for about a year to exchange the land for other land in or near the Superior National Forest, Sanders said. But a land exchange of this size is more cumbersome, forcing Polymet to find multiple willing sellers, bargain over price and acquire purchase agreements.

The legislation would require the Forest Service to use money from the sale to buy private land of equal value in or near the Superior National Forest boundary. The bill exempts the land sale from a separate environmental review, but supporters note that an environmental review of the mining project is under way.

Supporters say the bill simply speeds up the process of trading the mine land for other forested land.

“The legislation gets us to the same end, the same result as a land exchange,” Sanders said. “It’s the same value, the same appraisal process, whether it’s a sale or exchange.”

Selling the land directly to Polymet probably would speed up the process by a year or so because it avoids the environmental assessment required with a land exchange and allows the Forest Service to deal with directly with willing sellers.

“We think it avoids a lot of duplication on the environmental assessment. … And it saves a lot of time and effort for both us and the Forest Service,” said Latisha Gietzen, Polymet vice president of public, environmental and government affairs.

Mineral rights vs. land ownership

Sanders said the Forest Service purchased the land from U.S. Steel in the 1930s but has never owned the mineral rights below the surface. Polymet controls those mineral rights.

Polymet officials say they had been moving ahead with mining plans, assuming their mineral rights “superseded” surface ownership, Gietzen said. Regional U.S. Forest Service officials last year informed the company that they didn’t hold the same legal opinion.

Rather than battle it out, the two sides agreed on the legislation to sell the land, Gietzen said. But if that fails, the company still could try to sue the government to gain access to the minerals.

“We certainly can challenge their opinion. … But nobody wants to go that route,” Gietzen said.

Because the 6,700 acres is surrounded by mining-related activities — a railroad to the south and an active taconite mine to the north — Sanders said it makes sense to sell the land and use the proceeds to buy other, more environmentally sensitive land closer to the heart of the forest.

The forest covers more than 3 million acres; about 2 million of that is owned by the federal government. There are hundreds of tracts of private, state and county-owned land within the forest boundaries.

Sanders said he is eying private land in the Kawishiwi River area, near Trout Lake, the Fernberg corridor and near Mud Lake, where landowners are willing to sell and where “it makes sense to consolidate our holdings.”

But critics of copper mining in the north woods say the legislation seems to offer a special deal to the mining company.

The land in question includes undeveloped forest and 1,200 acres of wetlands, said John Doberstein of Duluth, chairman of the Mining Without Harm committee of the Minnesota Sierra Club. The bill was introduced in December with no announcement.

“Not only does the bill exempt them from doing an Environmental Impact Statement [on the sale], it also sets a dangerous precedent of taking public land and transferring it to a private company for their profit without any public input,” Doberstein said. “This really seems to fast-track the land sale for the convenience of the company, without any regard whether this is the right thing to do with the forest.”

Critics say that copper mines in other areas of the world have almost always brought extreme environmental problems.

John Schadl, an Oberstar spokesman, said the bill was introduced at the request of the Forest Service and Polymet to speed the company toward mining operations.

“It’s an effort to expedite the process but still do it in an environmentally sound way,” Schadl said. “And the bill as it is now [will] not be the same bill that moves. … There will be some changes.”

No Senate version has been introduced yet.

Congressional action to sell national forest land to private parties is not unheard of, Sanders said. About a dozen such bills have been passed in the past decade, he said.

Polymet would be Minnesota’s first copper-nickel mine. But Polymet is only one of several companies eyeing rich deposits of copper, nickel, platinum and palladium under northern Minnesota forests and lakes. The interest is being sparked by record-breaking prices for those minerals and new technology that make it easier to separate copper from other rock.

Polymet is the farthest along toward developing those minerals and has purchased land, processing equipment and buildings from the former LTV Mining site near Hoyt Lakes. The company’s proposed open pit mine on federal property is several miles away toward Babbitt and would be connected by railroad to the processing plant.

http://www.sosbluewaters.org/oberstar.htm

Alert on HR 4292: Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007

Link to bill ; http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-4292

This bill would sell Superior National Forest public land to a mining company in order to avoid public

environmental review and environmental protections !

HR 4292 mandates a sale of approximately 6,700 forested/wetland acres of Superior National Forest land near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, to PolyMet, Inc., a Canadian company hoping to open the first metallic sulfide copper strip mine in Minnesota. The U.S. Forest Service owns the surface rights to the land, but not the mineral rights. The underlying purpose of this bill would be to benefit the mining company by eluding steps in the standard land exchange process which includes public comment and environmental review.

PolyMet Mining proposed NorthMet site

Click on image to enlarge

Mineral Ownership of the Superior National Forest

Progressing with land transfer before completion of the environmental process

According to HR 4292, the U.S. Forest Service would be given required to sell 6,700 acres of public land to PolyMet before completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This is contrary to the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) and negates the purpose of the EIS, which is to allow for disclosure of environmental impacts of an action and for public input. There is an existing process for the Forest Service to exchange lands with private companies but exchange takes place after review that is open to the public in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement. This bill would circumvent that existing process.

This bill would also require the U.S. Forest Service to assume the responsibility for wetland replacement credits over a ten year period. The Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the Forest Service, is responsible for assessing impacts and mitigation alternatives for wetlands as part of the PolyMet EIS process. In addition, the Wetland Conservation Act of Minnesota is intended to prevent further loss of wetlands within the State. Thus HR 4292 is contrary to both Federal and State law.

HR 4292 further disregards public input by specifically denying appeal of the outcome.

Special favors for mining companies

The U. S. Forest Service owns less than half of the mineral estate in the Superior National Forest and in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Likewise, the Forest Service lacks mineral rights to many of its lands nationwide. This bill, if passed, could set precedence for the sale of public lands to private mining companies across the country. It would also open the doors for a dozen other mining companies who are currently exploring the Duluth Complex of rocks throughout Minnesota and other sulfide mineral deposits in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. These sulfide-bearing rocks encompass an area that extends underneath the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and between Voyageurs National Park and Lake Superior, before dipping down into the southern part of the state.

Ignoring potential harm to the environment

At the same time that a bill designed solely to help PolyMet bypass existing environmental and public disclosure law is being circulated through the halls of Congress, PolyMet is downplaying the potential effects of acid mine drainage. Sulfuric acid is a byproduct of metallic sulfide mining and in all previous mines required perpetual treatment of any affected watershed.

PolyMet spokesmen claim their company is "following all of Minnesota's environmental laws." HR 4292 seems contradictory to this statement.

Action requested Concerned citizens need to contact their U.S. representative, and Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman in opposition to HR 4292. More specifically, citizens can request an explanation from Rep. Oberstar regarding the intention of this bill to circumvent current environmental law, to sell public land for private investment, and to ignore opportunity for public input as part of the environmental impact statement process.

Primary Contact;

Senator Amy Klobuchar http://klobuchar.senate.gov/

E-Mail: senator@klobuchar.senate.gov

Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043

302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186

1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220
Main Fax: 612-727-5223
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043

1134 7th Street NW
Rochester, MN 55901
Main Line: 507-288-5321
Fax: 507-288-2922

121 4th Street South
Moorhead, MN 56560
Main Line: 218-287-2219
Fax: 218-287-2930

Olcott Plaza, Suite 105
820 9th Street North
Virginia, MN 55792
Main Line: 218-741-9690
Fax:218-741-3692

Senator Norm Coleman http://coleman.senate.gov/

E-Mail coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Washington Office:
320 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-5641
Fax: 202-224-1152
Scheduling: 202-228-1503

Minnesota Office in St. Paul:
2550 University Ave W, Suite 100N
St. Paul, MN 55114
Main: 651-645-0323
Fax: 651-645-3110
Toll Free: 800-642-6041

Minnesota Office in Mankato:
12 Civic Center Plaza
Suite 2167
Mankato, Minnesota 56001
Main: 507-625-6800
Fax: 507-625-9427

Minnesota Office in Grand Rapids:
200 Northbank Center 206B
Northeast 3rd Street
Grand Rapids, MN 55744
Main: 218-327-9333
Fax: 218-327-8637

Minnesota Office in Moorhead:
810 4th Avenue South
Suite 203
Moorhead, MN 56560

IEN news release

The Sale of Federal Lands to a Mining Company in the 1854 Treaty Area of Minnesota

Representative James Oberstar from Minnesota’s 8^th congressional district has introduced HR 4292 in the U.S. House of Representatives. This act, titled - the Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007 – would, require the Secretary of Agriculture to sell certain lands in Superior National Forest in Minnesota to Polymet Mining Company within 180 days of enactment. The act requires:

(1) The sale of 6,700 acres of Forest Service lands;

(2) The first offer for the sale of the lands under this Act is to be made to Poly Met Mining, Inc explicitly for the purposes of strip mining;

(3) Elimination of the requirement for public disclosure and environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Compliance under NEPA is usually met by the writing and review of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that informs the Secretary, affected federally recognized Tribes, and the public about possible environmental impacts of a federal land exchange. A major environmental impact will be the mining company dredging or filling with mine waste 1,200 acres of wetlands included in this sale adjacent to the Partridge River, a tributary of the St. Louis River. The St. Louis River flows through the Fond du Lac Indian reservation on it’s way to Lake Superior.

(4) There can be no administrative appeal of the sale.

(5) The sale must take place within 180 days of the enactment of the act.

This legislation would create a precedent by which the Superior National Forest could sell public lands each time a mine gets close to the permitting phase of development. This act relieves the Forest Service from their responsibilities to protect public lands here in Minnesota. This could become a precedent elsewhere each time a federal land agency chooses to ignore it’s mandated management responsibilities on order to expedite mining operations.

Exchanges of federal land routinely happen all over the country. The Bureau of Land management and U.S. Forest Service conduct approximately three hundred land exchanges annually. There is a process delineated in law (the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) that describes how this happens for both Bureau of Land Management holdings as well as U.S. Forest Service. There is no need to introduce legislation that circumvents existing law. There is a time tested federal process in place that gives the Secretary of Agriculture, the public, and Federally Recognized Indian tribes input into the land exchange process. While this process does not guarantee that all concerns are addressed, it guarantees that concerns are heard. The proposed legislation would take away the right for all citizens as well as other state, tribal, and federal agencies to have their voices heard on this land exchange.

This sale will have, as yet, undetermined impacts on treaty-reserved rights in the 1854 treaty area. There will be both short-term significant environmental consequences in the form of filling or draining approximately 1,200 acres of wetland and long term environmental and water quality degradation in the form of discharge from large waste rock piles. Loss of wetlands coupled with runoff from the mine waste stored on this site can adversely affect water quality as well as other cultural, and natural resources for miles downstream from the mine site. Chemicals from existing iron mines have already been detected in the St. Louis River where it enters the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation.

Let the Minnesota congressional delegation know that there is no need to sell this Forest Service land as proposed in HR 4292; there is an existing land exchange process that should not be circumvented. Let them know that all U.S. citizens and the tribes in the region have a right to express their views on the fate of this land. Let them know that there is an existing process for this type of transaction and that you favor the use of that process.

The author of H.R. 4292, The Superior National Forest Adjustment Act of 2007, is:

Congressman James L Oberstar

Eighth Congressional District of Minnesota

Duluth Federal Building, Room 231

Duluth, Minnesota 55802

(218) 727-7474

TDD: (218) 727-7474

FAX: (218) 727-8270

or

2365 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

(202) 225-6211

FAX: (202) 225-0699

http://www.oberstar.org/contact/

In the Senate, Amy Klobuchar is considering the introduction of companion legislation:

Senator Amy Klobuchar

1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250

Minneapolis, MN 55415

Main Line: 612-727-5220

Main Fax: 612-727-5223

or

302 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Phone: 202-224-3244

Fax: 202-228-2186

senator@klobuchar.senate.gov

For additional information, contact Robert Shimek, IEN Mining Projects Coordinator, 218-751-4967

Letter to the Duluth News Tribune-

To the editor:

I am writing to inform readers about H.R. 4292, the Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007, which is being sponsored by U.S. Representative James Oberstar. The sole purpose of this bill is to fast track a land sale between the U.S. Forest Service and PolyMet, Inc. in anticipation of the permitting of PolyMet’s proposed metallic sulfide mine near Hoyt Lakes.

The U.S. Forest Service would be given the authority to sell 6,700 acres of public forest land to PolyMet without any environmental review of the sale (which goes against current Federal law) and to assume the responsibility for wetland replacement credits over a ten year period (which goes against current wetland policy). Any administrative appeal would be denied. This bill would specifically help facilitate the permitting process for PolyMet.

The bill, if enacted, would also set a precedent for the selling of public land to private mining companies nationwide, based upon the fact that the U.S. Forest Service does not often hold the mineral rights to its lands.

Considering that PolyMet spokesmen claim they are asking for no favors and are following all of Minnesota’s environmental regulations, it seems a little strange that a bill designed solely for the benefit of PolyMet is currently circulating through the U.S. Congress.

At the same time, PolyMet is downplaying the effects of acid mine drainage, a problem associated with metallic sulfide mines, and which basically requires perpetual treatment. I believe it’s time for area citizens to take a closer look at the effects that the permitting of an entirely new mining industry will have upon the Arrowhead Region, and upon future generations.

Please let your elected officials know that you oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

Elanne Palcich

Chisholm, Minnesota

218-969-9557/218-254-3754

Blog-

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org:80/forum/environmental-news-discussion-forum/12434-6700-acres-superior-national-forest-being-sold-polymet-mng-no-eis-no-hearing.html

6700 acres of Superior National Forest being sold to POLYMET mng, NO EIS, NO hearing

---

Why is the National Forest Service selling 6700 acres of SUPERIOR NATL FOREST, MN, to Polymet, with no EIS??

There is a bill in Legislature in Minnesota to allow the National Forest Service to sell, directly to Polymet mining, 6700 acres of Superior National Forest, with no public hearing, no Environmental Impact Statement, nothing. that land includes 1200+ acres of wetlands.

My question is: why would the NFS suddenly, with no notice, place a bill to sell DIRECTLY, with NO public input, land to a mining company, land...that is the publics land?

Incidentally, Polymet intends to, within 12 months, have an open pit mining operation in place and active in that land. Have you seen what damage an open pit copper mine DOES to the earth?

WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THIS?

Contact your fellow environmentalists and please, make this an issue of contention. Its important!!!

Representative Jim Oberstar http://www.oberstar.house.gov//

E-Mail: http://wwwc.house.gov/oberstar/zipauth.htm

D.C. Office 2365 Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-6211

Duluth Office 231 Federal Building Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 727-7474

Chisholm Office City Hall, 316 Lake St. Chisholm, MN 55719 (218) 254-5761

Brainerd Office City Hall, 501 Laurel St. Brainerd, MN 54601 (218) 828-4400

North Branch Office 38625 14th Ave., Ste. 300B North Branch, MN 55056 (651) 277-1234

Contacting Office of the Governor http://www.governor.state.mn.us/contacts/index.htm

To contact Governor Tim Pawlenty and Lt. Governor Carol Molnau, please write, phone, fax or e-mail.

Mailing Address:

Office of the Governor
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155

Other ways to reach our office:

Telephone: (651) 296-3391
Toll Free: (800) 657-3717
Facsimile: (651) 296-2089
E-mail: tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

Contact Congress

http://www.mfc.org/grass/congress.htm

First District
Congressman Timothy J Walz(DFL)

Washington, DC Office: 1529 Longworth HOB Washington DC 20515 ph: (202) 225-2472 fax: (202) 225-3433

Manakato Office: 227 E Main St Suite 220 Mankato, MN 56001 ph: (507)388-2149 fax: (507) 388-6181

Rochester Office: 1134 7th St NW Rochester, MN 55901 ph:(507)206-0643 fax: (507)206-0650

E-Mail:
Web site: http://walz.house.gov

Second District
Congressman John Kline (R)

101 E. Burnsville Parkway, Ste 210 Burnsville, MN 55337 952-808-1213 Fax 952-808-1261

1429 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-2271 Fax 202-225-2595

Internet e-mail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Web site: http://www.house.gov/kline/

Third District
Congressman Jim Ramstad (R)

1809 Plymouth Rd S, Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55305 952-738-8200 Fax: 952-738-9362

103 Cannon House Office Bldg Washington DC 20015 202-225-2871 Fax: 202-225-6351

E-mail: mn03@mail.house.gov
Web site: http://www.house.gov/ramstad

Fourth District
Congressman Betty McCollum (DFL)

165 Western Ave N, Suite 17 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 651-224-9191 Fax: 651-224-3056

1029 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington DC 20515 202-225-6631 Fax: 202-225-1968

E-Mail: http://www.mccollum.house.gov/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC={AC61FD79-AD5F-440D-A7F0-555B12349E5B}
Web site: http://www.house.gov/mccollum/

Fifth District
Congressman Keith Ellison (DFL)

2100 Plymouth Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Phone: (612) 522-1212 Fax: (612) 522-9915

1130 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4755 Fax: (202) 225-4886

E-Mail:
Web site: http://ellison.house.gov/index.shtml

Sixth District
Congressman Michele Bachmann (R)

6043 Hudson Rd Suite 330 Woodbury, MN 55125 Phone: 651-731-5400 Fax: 651-731-6650

412 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2331

E-mail:
Web site: http://bachmann.house.gov/index.shtml

Seventh District
Congressman Collin Peterson (DFL)

714 Lake Ave Ste 107 Detroit Lakes MN 56501 218-847-5056 Fax: 218-847-5109	320 S Fourth St, Centre Point Mall Willmar, MN 56201 320-235-1061 Fax: 320-235-2651
Minnesota Wheat Growers Bldg 2603 Wheat Dr Red Lake Falls MN 56750 218-253-4356 Fax: 218-253-4373	2159 Rayburn House Office Bldg Washington DC 20515 202-225-2165 Fax: 202-225-1593

E-Mail: tocollin.peterson@mail.house.gov
Web site: http://www.house.gov/collinpeterson/

Copyright 2008 Save Our Sky Blue Waters, All Rights Reserved

The World's Longest ATV Parade is here!

WebEvent: Show Single Event
This link gives you all the skinny on that hoped-for world-record-breaking parade of ATVers gathered in Silver Bay today. That's right folks, today. They're expecting 2,500 people from all over the country, loud and proud, to ride some 50 miles of trails and play lots of fun games and churn up some topsoil and spew some fumes into the air.
It's the 25th anniversary of the All-Terrain Vehicle Association of Minnesota. Reason enough to bring out the storm troopers, last gathered two years ago in Harlan County, Kentucky, that bastion of coal mining greed where moutaintops are getting cut off and thrown down. A little ATV erosion seems but a small thing next to that, n'est-ce pas?
Here's where the rest of the world discovers the newest ATV destination: the North Shore!

White trash go for Hillary

Dear True,
I grew up in the Kentucky mountains of Appalachia. So I know from White Trash. They don't want no "Boy" to be president and so they cut off their own faces to vote against him. Obama is the only candidate who cares about the working poor. Hillary? Ha! She is the working rich. She and Hubby sent zillions of good jobs overseas with their trade agreements.
But the White Trash of Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia hear from the pulpit how to vote and it ain't for the only guy who cares about them.
A terrifying parallel exists between Appalachia and Northeastern Minnesota. Both are victims of big coal, big mining. In Kentucky the beautiful mountains of my childhood are being cut off at the top to get more coal. The debris of the dynamiting and destruction are plunged into the watershed; toxic chemicals are re-named as the bland label "fill." So it well may be here in Minnesota if Polymet goes ahead with a new copper mine that leaches into the St. Louis county watershed and ultimately creates a new dead zone where life just doesn't go on.
Ya, the White Trash of the South and the dumb shits of the Northeast either don't know or don't give a shit that their lands and waters are being destroyed by big money interest to whom both Clinton and McCain are beholden. BUT, here at least we like Obama. Down there they won't ever, ever vote for a "Boy."

A "Sub-deb" from Kentucky (meaning I was White but not Trash)

PS If it is True that 56 percent of Minnesotans approve of "Pawlenty for the Rich" who was in large part responsible for the Minneapolis bridge collapse and our tanking economy, well I guess you get the government you deserve.

MinnPost

New mining industry leaves Arrowhead wetlands vulnerable

By Elanne Palcich

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

In the late 1800s, the U.S. government claimed the land of Minnesota, and pushed the indigenous people onto reservations. The huge pine forests of northern Minnesota were cut, red earth was discovered, and immigrants from a variety of struggling northern and southern European nations moved in to become workers for the mining companies.

While the Iron Range continues to be mined, following bands of taconite rock, the Arrowhead region of Minnesota escaped the mining process. Some of the northern counties were in large part wetlands, while others remained forestland. The Arrowhead region became known for its lakes and for the quality of outdoor recreational opportunities — the vacation land of the north, where campers "hear the lapping waters, hear the whispering of the pine trees."

These northern wetlands escaped the destruction that occurred as the rest of the state turned urban or agricultural.

Scientists know that wetlands have evolved over the past 10,000 years, since the recession of the last glaciers. We also know now that wetlands sequester carbon — and that destroying wetlands releases carbon that has been stored over centuries. There is evidence that global climate change is literally being fueled by the burning of fossil fuels and the accompanying release of CO2 into the air.

A new threat in the Arrowhead
Minnesota's wetlands may hold the key to moderating climate change on a local level, except for one thing: the threat of an entirely new mining industry poised to begin in the Arrowhead.

The industrialization of the burgeoning populations of China and India is driving demand and prices for copper, nickel, platinum, and gold — precious metals bonded within sulfide ores throughout the Duluth Complex, the underlying rock formation of the Arrowhead Region.

These precious metals are very low grade — 0.4 percent copper, 0.1 percent nickel and 0.01 ounces per ton of platinum, palladium, and gold. But the current price is enough to bring a half-dozen Canadian companies into the Arrowhead, exploring in an unregulated fashion and pulling every political string for funding and support.

The international balance of economic power is changing. Just three generations after the take-over of native lands by extractive industries, Canadian companies are seeking to turn the remaining Arrowhead Region into a colonial outpost for China and India. For basically a handful of jobs, we are turning over our land and our culture so that Canadian companies and their shareholders can earn fantastic sums on precious metals while our workers will receive $40,000-a-year nonunion wages (translate into no pension and no health care) based on the price of copper. And when the price of copper drops, or the precious-metals market collapses, or the price of diesel fuel makes mining uneconomical, the Canadian companies will pull up stakes and leave northern Minnesota with an acid-mine drainage problem requiring perpetual treatment — almost forever.

No way to replace lost wetlands
The Arrowhead region of northern Minnesota is our Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's our Brazilian rainforest. It is the equivalent of the remaining special places left on each continent, in each country. When we lose our wetlands, there is no way to replace them. There is no way to reconstruct a process that took thousands of years to form. There is no way to recapture the carbon released when wetlands are destroyed. There is no way to rebuild the wildlife habitat and plant communities that will be eliminated.

At the same time, this new mining industry would spew hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2 into the air, further contributing to global warming.

Consider, too, that the Arrowhead is just the first piece of the metallic sulfide pie. While exploration is progressing in the Birch Lake area, along the Kawishiwi River, Partridge River, and the St. Louis River, companies are also exploring along the Rainy, Pigeon, Root, Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers, the Mille Lacs area, in the Big Sandy Watershed (Aitkin County), and in Carlton County.

Bill would set a precedent
In the meantime, U.S. 8th District Rep. James Oberstar has introduced a bill in Congress (H.R. 4292, the Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007) that would fast track a land sale between the U.S. Forest Service and Polymet, Inc., in anticipation of the permitting of Polymet's proposed metallic sulfide mine near Hoyt Lakes. While this bill singles out Polymet for special treatment, it would also set a precedent for the selling of public lands to private mining companies nationwide, or wherever the Forest Service does not own the mineral rights. Much of the mineral estate in Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters is owned by mining interests, not the Forest Service. What implications might this have for the future?

What exactly are those of us living here thinking? Are we in denial regarding the ecological degradation that is taking place on a global scale and how this is going to affect our future? Are we naive enough to believe propaganda about clean mining technology that is being pushed upon us by mining-company spokesmen who are set to receive huge bonuses once the sulfide industry gets up and running?

Or are we going to believe in our own ability to create an alternative future that allows us to finally acknowledge the true heritage of the Arrowhead Region — that of living in harmony with the land?

Elanne Palcich, a retired elementary school teacher, lives in Chisholm, Minn.

Copper mining debate squares off in legislative hearing

Divisive debate on mining copper gets legislative hearing

Supporters, skeptics on northern mining square off

NEWS ADVISORY Contacts

Jan. 18, 2008 Janette Brimmer

Legal Director

MCEA

651-223-5969

jbrimmer@mncenter.org

Ron Meador

Executive director

Friends of the BWCA

612-332-9630

ron@friends-bwca.org

Chuck Laszewski

Communications Dir.

MCEA

651-223-5969

claszewski@mncenter.org

Divisive debate on mining copper gets legislative hearing

Supporters, skeptics on northern mining square off

ST.PAUL--What promises to be a contentious debate throughout 2008 will kick off Friday, Jan. 25 during a joint Legislative hearing by environmental, work force and economic development committees over proposed metallic sulfide mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.

Two Canadian mining companies are vigorously pursuing state permits to mine copper, nickel, gold and other precious metals from sulfide-bearing rock in northeastern Minnesota. Polymet Corp. is expected to release its draft environmental impact statement on its proposed operation in the spring.

Metallic sulfide mining is different from taconite mining and much more hazardous to the environment. Once exposed to air and water, excavated rock produces sulfuric acid that drains into rivers, lakes and even ground water, killing fish, birds and other wildlife. Often the drainage carries toxic metals as well. States are usually left with millions of dollars of clean-up when the mine companies leave, a chore that can go on virtually forever.

Two of the expert witnesses Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy is bringing to the hearing will detail the damage done throughout the country by sulfide mining, explain that the Iron Range’s economy has rebounded from the taconite bust of the 1980s and show how sulfide mining could hurt, rather than help, the area’s economy.

WHEN: 12:30 p.m. Friday Jan. 25

WHERE: Room 200 State Office Building

WHO: Joint meeting of House Environment and Natural Resources Finance Divisions, Senate Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Budget Division, House Higher Education and Work Force Development Policy and Finance Division, and Senate Economic Development Budget Division. The chairs of the committees are Rep. Jean Wagenius, Sen. Ellen Anderson, Rep. Tom Rukavina and Sen. David Tomassoni.

Why am I not surprised?

Dear True,
I have been reading with interest the recent posts that taconite dust can cause cancer and that the public officials charged with public safety have withheld this information from workers.
Hmm, I just have one comment. This concerns the statements by some powers that be that there is no reason to suspect any culprit other than asbestos in the killer cancer.
I am a descendant of Appalachian coal miners from the Kentucky mountains. From my earliest memories I heard about "black lung disease." The lungs turn black from exposure to coal dust. Let's not quibble about coal, taconite, or asbestos. They all are poisonous.
Duh, it seems like a no-brainer to me. In the 50 years since my childhood, other poisons have entered the environment freely and what was once "only" a lung affliction has now turned to the deadliest cancer.
Nancye Belding
Grand Marais

Dirty Mines? Mine water quality predictions often wrong

Dear readers,
Please bear with us on mining pollution, it ultimately affects the North Shore in a multitude of ways. To name only one: the filthy use of coal in the power generation that provides our electricity.
True


By CHRISTOPHER SMITH Associated Press, December 7, 2006

BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Conservationists say water quality predictions prepared by federal land management agencies as part of the permitting process for precious metal mines during the past 25 years were routinely off the mark in concluding the mines would not cause water pollution.

"When we compared the government's predictions with actual water quality reports we found the predictions did not generally agree with reality," said Ann Maest, a water quality geochemist from Boulder, Colo., who co-authored the study released Thursday by the Washington, D.C.-based conservation group Earthworks. "Over three-quarters of the mines we reviewed in detail had pollution exceedances over water quality standards.

"Mining industry officials said they were still reviewing the conservation group's analysis, but questioned \n the inclusion of mines in the study that went bust, were abandoned \n and may not have been built to agreed-upon environmental protection standards."There may be some things in this report that we certainly need to act upon, but it looks to me like a quarter of the mines they decided to look at are abandoned and that may be a little unfair," said Carol Raulston of the National Mining Association in Washington. "There are some mines in their database that are not characteristic of modern mining."

James Kuipers, a Butte, Mont., mining engineer who also authored the conservationists' study, said the findings that water quality protection predictions seldom hold true should prompt regulators to better scrutinize proposals for new mines, including northeast Washington state's Buckhorn gold mine, and the gold and copper Pebble mine in Alaska.

"Mines like the Rosemont copper mine in Arizona and the Atlanta gold mine in Idaho, at least as they are presently being proposed, appear to suffer from many of the same failures as those that were permitted years ago," he said. Kuipers compared the proposed Atlanta mine to the closed Zortman-Landusky mining complex in northern Montana, where taxpayers must foot the bill for treating contaminated water for decades to come.

Atlanta wants to use cyanide to leach gold from the ore left from old mines on a tributary upstream from the Boise River. Environmental groups have warned it could pollute the source of drinking water, irrigation and recreation for the state's most populous river valley.",

"The \n Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the \n Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water \n quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to \n regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, \n relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying \n mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine \n overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine \n in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only \n a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the \n amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more \n samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an \n acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the \n discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, \n cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining \n and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are \n continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to \n prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to \n look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those \n prediction models if the assumptions don\'t match what they are \n seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are \n faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in \n our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks \n mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National \n Mining Association: ",1]
);
//-->
"The Boise River is more precious than gold," said John Robison of the Idaho Conservation League.Many of the failures of the water quality predictions in the permit-approval studies were due to regulators ignoring previous experiences with hard rock mines, relying on private consultants who have a bias toward satisfying mining clients and failing to take adequate samples to determine overall impacts, Maest said."At the proposed Rock Creek Mine in Montana, under a designated wilderness area, they have used only a handful of ore and waste samples from the site to predict the amount of acid drainage," she said. "They need to look at more samples."Raulston said the mining industry has launched an acid drainage initiative to find ways to better prevent the discharge of acidic pollutants and heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead that are leached out of rock during mining and can be deadly to stream ecosystems. And, modern mines are continually monitoring water quality and adjusting operations to prevent pollution discharge, she said."They are required to look at what is happening on the ground and recalibrate those prediction models if the assumptions don't match what they are seeing," she said. "This notion that these prediction models are faith-based initiatives is just not something that really happens in our experience."___On the Net:Earthworks mine water quality report: http://www.mine-aid.org/National Mining Association:
http://www.nma.org/\n \n http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#\n \n \n http://www.mine-aid.org/\n Groundbreaking research indicates the mine \n permitting process is \n broken.\n \n Dec 7 -- \n New scientific research unveiled \n today finds that faulty water \n quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval \n of mines that create significant water pollution problems at \n more than three quarters of mines studied. \n \n \n The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water \n Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art",1]
);
//-->
http://www.nma.org/

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/53303.html#


http://www.mine-aid.org/
Groundbreaking research indicates the mine permitting process is broken.

Dec 7 -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems at more than three quarters of mines studied.
The first-of-a-kind reports, Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines, and Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
, by Jim Kuipers, \n P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \n predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted \n in the United States during the last 25 years. \n A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock \n Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good \n Practice summarizes these reports and \n provides policy recommendations for \n regulators.\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nNOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By \ndownloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize \nthem until that date.\n\n Comparison \n of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental \n Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive) \n Predicting \n Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf \n document. Right click to save to your hard drive)",1]
);
//-->
, by Jim Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
A white paper authored by EARTHWORKS, Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice summarizes these reports and provides policy recommendations for regulators.





NOTE: These reports are embargoed until 12/7. By downloading these reports, you are agreeing not to distribute/share/publicize them until that date.
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock MinesThe reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements(1,418KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock MinesMethods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art(1,005KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive)
\n Predicting \n Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper \n summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim \n Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to \n your hard drive.) \n Independent \n reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been \n prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to \n save to your hard drive.) \n Major \n mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in \n the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right \n click to save to your hard drive.) \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nhttp://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS\n \n \n2006 Press Releases \nNew Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep \nMines from Polluting Water",1]
);
//-->

Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock MinesA Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good PracticeAn EARTHWORKS white paper summarizing and analyzing the groundbreaking studies by Ann Maest PhD and Jim Kuipers, P.E. (350KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Independent reviewers of the research and conferences where the research has been prsented.(A 12KB pdf document. Right click to save to your hard drive.)
Major mine databaseData on all mines considered for inclusion in the Maest-Kuipers research.(A 2.5MB excel workbook. Right click to save to your hard drive.)






http://www.earthworksaction.org/PR_KuipersMaest.cfm#KMREPORTS


2006 Press Releases
New Scientific Research Reveals Widespread Failure to Keep Mines from Polluting Water
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine \nPermitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, \nand Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups\nDec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that \nfaulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures \nresult in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution \nproblems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that \nmines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of \nstudied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and \ngroundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, \nand exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by \nthe Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups \nin as many as ten western states affected by mining.\n"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial \ncosts of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are \npermitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where \npredictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process \nis broken and must be fixed." \nThe first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual \nWater Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at \nHardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by \nKuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality \npredictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the \nUnited States during the last 25 years. \nThe scientists found that predictions of mining\'s impact on \nclean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They \nalso found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, \nincorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the \ninaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.",1]
);
//-->
Regulatory and Scientific Failures in Mine Permitting Result in Widespread Water Pollution, Increased Public Health Risks, and Costly Taxpayer-Funded Cleanups
Dec 7, Washington, DC -- New scientific research unveiled today finds that faulty water quality predictions, mitigation measures and regulatory failures result in the approval of mines that create significant water pollution problems. Despite assurances from government regulators and mine proponents that mines would not pollute clean water, researchers found that 76 percent of studied mines exceeded water quality standards, polluting rivers, and groundwater with toxic contaminants, such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cyanide, and exposing taxpayers to huge cleanup liabilities. The release was issued by the Washington, DC-based conservation group EARTHWORKS and conservation groups in as many as ten western states affected by mining.
"Without correction, the human, environmental, and financial costs of these regulatory failures will continue to grow as more mines are permitted," said report author and mining engineer Jim Kuipers. "Where predictions of water quality at mine sites are concerned, the scientific process is broken and must be fixed."
The first-of-a-kind reports, "Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines," and "Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art," by Kuipers, P.E., and geochemist Ann Maest, Ph.D., analyzed water quality predictions and outcomes at 25 representative metal mines permitted in the United States during the last 25 years.
The scientists found that predictions of mining's impact on clean water were made without checking the results of past predictions. They also found that predictions were often made using inadequate information, incorrectly applied. Not surprisingly, mitigation measures based on the inaccurate predictions also typically failed to protect clean water.
\nAmong the researchers\' findings for the 25 mines examined in \ndepth:\n\n 76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or \n surface water quality standards \n 93 percent of mines that are near \n groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant \n leaching exceeded water quality standards[1] \n 85 percent of mines that are near surface \n water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching \n exceeded water quality standards \n Water quality standards for toxic heavy \n metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 \n percent of mines. \n Mitigation measures predicted to protect \n clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.\n"Regulators and mining companies have a \nresponsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, \nstate-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said \nMaest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines \nto keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable." \n\nThe researchers also found that mines located near surface or \ngroundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or \ncontaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in \nwater pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for \ncontroversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting \nincluding:\n\n Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska \n at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world\'s largest salmon \n runs. \n Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the \n Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal \n water",1]
);
//-->

Among the researchers' findings for the 25 mines examined in depth:
76 percent of mines exceed groundwater or surface water quality standards
93 percent of mines that are near groundwater and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards[1]
85 percent of mines that are near surface water and have elevated potential for acid drainage or contaminant leaching exceeded water quality standards
Water quality standards for toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc, were exceeded at 63 percent of mines.
Mitigation measures predicted to protect clean water failed at 64 percent of the mines.
"Regulators and mining companies have a responsibility to ensure that sound science and widely available, state-of-the-art methods are used to prevent pollution at mine sites," said Maest. "Changes in permitting evaluations are needed at current and future mines to keep our waters clean and our fisheries viable."
The researchers also found that mines located near surface or groundwater that tapped ore bodies with high potential for acid-generation or contaminant leaching, and near water resources were at high-risk of resulting in water pollution. This finding in particular has serious implications for controversial new mines now being proposed, or in permitting including:
Pebble gold-copper mine in southwest Alaska at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, home to the world's largest salmon runs.
Atlanta gold mine in Idaho adjacent to the Boise River, which provides Boise with more than 20 percent of its municipal water
\n Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest \n Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains \n Wilderness.\n"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, \nthis report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director \nof Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these \nfindings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, \nhealthier economies, and more responsible mining." \nSustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing \ndemand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines \nand mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed \nin 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple \nsince 2002.\nBased on the researchers\' findings, the groups releasing the \nstudies offered the following recommendations:\n\n Better screening of high-risk mines -- \n particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create \n pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching. \n Take a precautionary approach to mine \n permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios. \n Undertake a thorough review of water quality \n predictions at all existing mines. \n Keep the public informed, make risks \n transparent. \n Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine \n proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and \n analyses.\nThe reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at \nfive major conferences, including: U.S. EPA\'s Hardrock 2006 Conference in \nTucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration\'s 2006 Annual \nMeeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in \nFairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006. ",1]
);
//-->

Rock Creek silver-copper mine in northwest Montana near the Clark Fork River and underneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.
"With dozens of new mines and mine expansions in the pipeline, this report could not have come at a better time," said Alan Septoff, Director of Research at EARTHWORKS, which commissioned the studies. "Action on these findings by regulators and mining companies should result in cleaner water, healthier economies, and more responsible mining."
Sustained increases in metal prices, driven in part by growing demand from China, have triggered a sharp increase in the number of new mines and mine expansions being proposed in the United States. New mining claims filed in 2006 for mines on federal public lands are on track to more than quadruple since 2002.
Based on the researchers' findings, the groups releasing the studies offered the following recommendations:
Better screening of high-risk mines -- particularly those near water resources that have the potential to create pollution from acid drainage or metal leaching.
Take a precautionary approach to mine permitting and plan for worst-case scenarios.
Undertake a thorough review of water quality predictions at all existing mines.
Keep the public informed, make risks transparent.
Prevent conflicts-of-interest between mine proponents and expert consultants who prepare predictions and analyses.
The reports have been extensively peer-reviewed and presented at five major conferences, including: U.S. EPA's Hardrock 2006 Conference in Tucson, Arizona; Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration's 2006 Annual Meeting in St. Louis; and the Mine Design, Operations and Closure Conference in Fairmont Hot Springs, Montana, also in 2006.
\n\n \n\n\nPredictions vs \nReality reports\n\n Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock \n Mines \n Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, \n Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art \n \n Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of \n Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white \n paper.\n\nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite \n808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n",1]
);
//-->


Predictions vs Reality reports
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines
Predicting Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: Methods and Models, Uncertainties, and State-of-the-Art
Predicting Water Quality Problems at Hardrock Mines: A Failure of Science, Oversight, and Good Practice. An EARTHWORKS white paper.
Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org

.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfmn \nCuster National Forest, \nMT\n\nRancher Not Informed about \nMineral Leasing\nBy Jeanie \nAlderson\nMy father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a \ncow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this \npart of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay \ntaxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. \nWhile we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the \nfederal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land \nthat is very close to our homes.\nI knew that the federal government owned \nminerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal \nmineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) \nofficial in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been \nleased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually \nreceived from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals \nhad leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not \ndistinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all \nindications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane \ndevelopment. \nBLM never informed me they were leasing \nminerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease \nstipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any \ninformation about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in \nregard to the development of federal minerals.",1]
);
//-->
http://www.earthworksaction.org/cvJeanieAlderson.cfm

Custer National Forest, MT
Rancher Not Informed about Mineral Leasing
By Jeanie Alderson
My father and two sisters own Bones Brothers Ranch, a cow/calf ranching operation in southeastern Montana. Like many ranches in this part of Montana, ours has been built over the last 110 years. We own and pay taxes on 8,435 acres, and lease grazing land on the Custer National Forest. While we own some of the minerals below our land, other family members and the federal government own the rest. Many of the federal minerals are under land that is very close to our homes.
I knew that the federal government owned minerals below our ranch; however, I knew nothing about the process of federal mineral leasing. In December 2000, I called a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official in Miles City to find out if the minerals under our ranch had been leased for coalbed methane development. From the information I eventually received from this BLM official, I learned that five companies and individuals had leased the federal minerals below our land. Although the BLM does not distinguish between regular oil and gas leases and coalbed methane leases, all indications point to these minerals being leased for coalbed methane development.
BLM never informed me they were leasing minerals under our ranch. BLM never asked for input regarding lease stipulations. I was never told about the leasing process, nor did I receive any information about the relationship between surface owners and mineral owners in regard to the development of federal minerals.
\nHad we been able to be involved in the leasing \nprocess we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, \nand how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge \nof the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, \nnative plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided \ninformation about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. \nThis information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, \nultimately more effective, manner.\nIn the present situation, we had no input into \na process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives \nforever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what \nhappens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take \nprecedence over surface rights.\nReprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource \nCouncils\n\n \nEarthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 \nWashington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872 info@earthworksaction.org\n \n \n \n\n\n",0]
);
//-->

Had we been able to be involved in the leasing process we could have provided helpful information about our ranching operation, and how leasing decisions will affect our ranch. We have an intimate knowledge of the landscape and could have provided information about wildlife habitat, native plants, unstable slopes, watersheds and so forth. We could have provided information about where not to allow drilling, and where it might be acceptable. This information could have guided the leasing in a more reasonable and, ultimately more effective, manner.
In the present situation, we had no input into a process that will ultimately affect our land, water, business and lives forever. It seems like common sense that landowners should have more say in what happens on their property, but the simple truth is that oil and gas rights take precedence over surface rights.
Reprinted with permission from the Western Organization of Resource Councils

Earthworks 1612 K St., NW, Suite 808 Washington, D.C., USA 20006 202.887.1872