This bill requires a person who is contemplating an iron mining project to
provide DNR with a general description of the proposed mining project. The
description must include a description of the mining site, including the nature,
extent, and final configuration of the proposed excavation and mining site and
certain other informations including a map showing the boundaries of the area of
land that will be affected by the mining project. The bill requires the person to
include this information with the bulk sampling plan, described below, or if the
person does not file a bulk sampling plan, with the person's notification to DNR of
the person's intent to apply for an iron mining permit. The bill requires DNR to
conduct a public informational hearing on a proposed mining project after receiving
the general description, either as part of the hearing on approvals required for bulk
sampling or, if there is no such hearing, as a separate hearing.
This bill requires a person who intends to apply for an iron mining permit to
notify DNR of that intention at least 12 months before filing the application. The bill
requires DNR to meet with the applicant to make a preliminary assessment of the
project's scope, to make an analysis of alternatives, to identify potential interested
persons, and to ensure that the person intending to apply for an iron mining permit
is aware of the approvals that the person may be required to obtain. DNR must also
ensure that the person is aware of the requirements for submission of an
environmental impact report and of the information DNR will require to enable it to
process the application for the mining permit in a timely manner.
After the meeting, DNR must provide to the applicant any available
information relevant to the potential impact of the project on threatened or
endangered species and historic or cultural resources and any other information
relevant to impacts that are required to be considered in the environmental impact
statement.
Application for mining permit
Under current law, a person who wishes to obtain a permit for metallic mining
must submit an application to DNR that includes a mining plan, a reclamation plan,
information about the owners of the mining site, and information related to the
failure to reclaim mining sites and to any criminal convictions for violations of
environmental laws in the course of mining by persons involved in the proposed
mining. The application must also include evidence that the applicant has applied
for necessary approvals under applicable zoning ordinances and for any approvals
issued by DNR that are necessary to conduct the mining, such as air pollution
permits and wastewater discharge permits.
This bill includes similar provisions for the application for an iron mining
permit, except that the applicant may provide evidence that the applicant will apply,
rather than has applied, for necessary zoning approvals and for other approvals
issued by DNR.
The required content of the mining plan for iron mining under the bill is similar
to that required under current statutes and DNR rules. The required content of the
reclamation plan for iron mining is also similar to that required under current law.
Current law requires the applicant for a metallic mining permit to show that
the mining and reclamation will comply with specified minimum standards. The bill
requires showings by the applicant for an iron mining permit that differ in some ways
from current law. For example, current law requires a demonstration that water
runoff from the mining site will be managed so as to prevent soil erosion to the extent
practicable, flooding, damage to agricultural lands or livestock, damage to wild
animals, pollution of ground or surface waters, and damage to public health and
safety. The bill, instead, requires a showing that water runoff from an iron mining
site will be managed in compliance with any approval that regulates construction
site erosion control or storm water management.
Permitting process
Environmental impact statement
Current law requires DNR to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for every proposed metallic mine. An EIS contains detailed information about
the environmental impact of a proposed project, including any adverse
environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented,
alternatives to the proposed project, the beneficial aspects of the proposal, and the
economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. For a metallic mining
project, current law requires a description of significant long-term and short-term
impacts, including impacts after the mining has ended, on tourism, employment,
schools, social services, the tax base, the local economy, and "other significant
factors."
This bill requires DNR to prepare an EIS for every proposed iron mine. The bill
requires DNR to include a description of significant impacts on most of the same
matters as under current metallic mining law.
Under current law, when a person applies for a permit or other approval for
which DNR is required to complete an EIS, DNR is generally authorized to require
the applicant to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) that discloses
environmental impacts of the proposed project to assist DNR in preparing the EIS.
Current law authorizes DNR to enter into an agreement with a person considering
applying to DNR for approval of a project that is large, complex, or environmentally
sensitive to provide preapplication services necessary to evaluate the environmental
impact of the project and to expedite the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the
project.
The bill requires the applicant for a mining permit to prepare an EIR. The bill
requires the applicant for a mining permit to submit the EIR with the application for
the mining permit.
Current law authorizes DNR to conduct the processes related to an EIS jointly
with other agencies who have responsibilities related to a proposed project.
The bill requires DNR to conduct its environmental review process for a
proposed iron mine jointly with other state agencies and requires the preparation of
one joint EIS. The bill requires DNR to conduct its environmental review process
jointly with any federal or local agency that consents to a joint process.
Current law requires DNR to hold at least one informational meeting on a
preliminary environmental report for a mining project before it issues the EIS. This
bill does not require such an informational meeting.
Mining hearing
Current law requires DNR to hold a public hearing, called a master hearing, on
an application for a metallic mining permit between 120 and 180 days after it issues
the EIS for the proposed mine and before it acts on the mining permit application.
The hearing includes both a contested case hearing, with testimony under oath and
the opportunity for cross-examination, and a public informational hearing. The law
requires the hearing to cover the EIS and all other approvals issued by DNR that are
required for the mining project, to the extent possible. Under current law, the
provisions related to notice, hearing, and comment in the metallic mining law apply
to any other needed approval, unless the applicant fails to make an application for
an approval in time for it to be considered at the master hearing.
This bill requires DNR to hold a public informational hearing for a proposed
iron mining project before it acts on a mining permit application. The hearing does
not include a contested case hearing. The hearing must cover the mining permit, the
EIS, and all other approvals issued by DNR that are required for the mining project,
unless the application for an approval is filed too late to allow the approval to be
considered at the mining hearing. The bill requires DNR to take testimony at the
hearing on certain issues with regard to a proposed withdrawal of groundwater or
surface water including the public rights in any body of water and the related
environment that may be injured by the proposed withdrawal, the public benefits
provided by increased employment, economic activity, and tax revenues from the
proposed mining, and the rights of competing users of the groundwater or surface
water. Under the bill, the provisions related to notice, hearing, and comment in the
iron mining law apply to any other required approval.
Deadline; for acting on permit application
Current law does not specify a time, after the application for a mining permit
is filed, within which DNR must act on a metallic mining permit application. It does
require the master hearing to be held between 120 days and 180 days after DNR
issues the EIS and requires DNR to act on the permit within 90 days after the
completion of the record for the public hearing.
The bill requires DNR to act on an application for an iron mining permit no
more than 420 days after the application is considered to be complete unless DNR
and the applicant agree to extend the deadline. The parties may agree to only one
extension, which may not exceed 60 days. DNR and the applicant may agree to an
extension only if an extension is necessary to allow DNR and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers to jointly prepare the EIS or if new information or a change to the
mining proposal necessitates additional time to review the application. Under the
bill, if the applicant submits the application for another approval within 60 days
after the application for the mining permit is considered to be complete, DNR must
also act on the application for that approval by the deadline for acting on the mining
permit application. If the applicant files the application for another approval more
than 60 days after the application for the mining permit is considered to be complete,
the deadline for DNR's action on the approval is extended by the number of days the
application is late.
If DNR does not act within the deadline for acting on the application for an iron
mining permit, DNR must refund the fees paid by the applicant. The bill also
authorizes the applicant to bring a court action to compel DNR to act on the mining
permit.
Determination of completeness
The bill requires DNR to review the application for a mining permit and, within
30 days, determine whether the application is complete. If DNR determines that the
application is complete, it notifies the applicant and the date of the notification is the
date on which the application is considered to be complete. If DNR determines that
the application is incomplete, it notifies the applicant and may make one request for
additional information within the 30-day review period. If DNR fails to provide a
notice during the 30-day review period, the application is considered to be complete
at the end of that period. Within 10 days after receiving additional requested
information, DNR notifies the applicant whether it has received all of the requested
information. The day on which DNR sends the second notice is the day on which the
application is considered to be complete. If DNR fails to provide a notice during the
10-day period, the application is considered to be complete at the end of that period.
The bill authorizes DNR to request additional information needed to process
the application for a mining permit after the application is considered to be complete,
but it may not delay the determination that the application is complete based on a
request for additional information.
Grant or denial of mining permit
Grounds for denial
Current law requires DNR to deny an application for a metallic mining permit
for a proposed surface mine if the site is unsuitable for surface mining. A site is
unsuitable for surface mining if the surface mining may reasonably be expected to
destroy or damage either: 1) habitats required for the survival of endangered species
of vegetation or wildlife that cannot be firmly reestablished elsewhere; or 2) unique
features of the land, as determined by state or federal designation, as, for example,
wilderness areas, national or state parks, archaeological areas, and other lands of
a type specified by DNR by rule, as unique or unsuitable for surface mining. DNR
has designated more than 150 specific scientific areas for the purposes of the
determination of unsuitability.
This bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit under
the same standards for unsuitability as under current law, except that
archaeological areas and areas designated by DNR as being unique or unsuitable for
surface mining are not considered for the purposes of determining unsuitability.
Current law requires DNR to deny an application for a metallic mining permit
if the mining operation is reasonably expected to cause the destruction or filling in
of a lake bed or to cause landslides or substantial deposition in stream or lake beds
that cannot be feasibly prevented.
The bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause the destruction or filling in of a lake
bed, unless DNR has authorized the destruction or filling in of the lake bed under the
provisions of the bill related to wetlands, navigable waters, or water withdrawals.
The bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit if the mining
operation is reasonably expected to cause landslides or substantial deposition in
stream or lake beds that cannot be feasibly prevented, unless DNR has authorized
the landslides or substantial deposition in stream or lake beds under the provisions
of the bill related to wetlands or navigable waters.
Current law requires DNR to deny an application for a mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause hazards resulting in irreparable
damage to specified kinds of structures, such as residences, schools, or commercial
buildings, to public roads, or to other public property designated by DNR by rule, if
the damage cannot be prevented under the mining laws, avoided by removal from the
area of hazard, or mitigated by purchase or by obtaining the consent of the owner.
The bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause hazards resulting in irreparable,
substantial physical damage to the specified kinds of structures or to public roads,
but not to other public property designated by DNR by rule, if the damage cannot be
prevented under the mining laws created by the bill, avoided to the extent
practicable by removal from the area of hazard, or offset by purchase or by obtaining
the consent of the owner.
The bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause irreparable substantial
environmental damage to lake or stream bodies despite adherence to the mining
laws, unless DNR has authorized the activity that causes the damage.
As under the current metallic mining laws, the bill requires DNR to deny an
iron mining permit if the applicant has violated and continues to fail to comply with
this state's mining laws. As also provided under current metallic mining law, the bill
contains requirements for the denial of an iron mining permit based on the failure
to reclaim mining sites, and based on criminal convictions for violations of
environmental laws in the course of mining, in the United States by persons involved
in the proposed iron mining.
Standards for approval
Under current law, if none of the grounds for denial of the application for a
metallic mining permit apply, DNR must issue the mining permit if it finds the
following: 1) the mining plan and reclamation plan are reasonably certain to result
in reclamation of the mining site as required by current law and DNR has approved
the mining plan; 2) the proposed mining operation will comply with all applicable air,
groundwater, surface water, and solid and hazardous waste management statutes
and rules; 3) the proposed mine will not endanger public health, safety, or welfare;
4) the proposed mine will result in a net positive economic impact in the area
expected to be most impacted by the mine; and 5) the proposed mining operation
conforms with all applicable zoning ordinances.
Under this bill, the standards for approval of an iron mining permit differ in
some respects from the standards under current law. Under the bill, if none of the
grounds for denial of the application for an iron mining permit apply, DNR must
issue an iron mining permit if it finds the following: 1) the mining plan and
reclamation plan are reasonably certain to result in reclamation of the mining site
as required by the provisions of this bill; 2) the applicant has committed to
conducting the proposed iron mining in compliance with the mining permit and any
other approvals issued by DNR; 3) the proposed iron mining is not likely to result in
substantial adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare; 4) the proposed iron
mine will result in a net positive economic impact in the area expected to be most
impacted by the mine; 5) the applicant has applied for all applicable zoning
approvals; 6) the waste site feasibility study and plan of operation comply with the
provisions of the bill (described below) and; 7) the proposed iron mining is likely to
meet or exceed regulations that apply to floodplain zoning ordinances.
Review of DNR decisions
Generally, under current law, a person aggrieved by a decision of a state agency
may obtain a contested case administrative hearing under this state's
administrative procedure laws. If the matter was covered in the contested case
hearing conducted before DNR acts on an application for a metallic mining permit,
this general right to a contested case hearing after a decision has been made does not
apply.
This bill does not allow a contested case hearing on any decision by DNR related
to a proposed iron mine before DNR acts on the application for the iron mining
permit. Under the bill, the right to a contested case hearing applies if a person is
aggrieved by a decision to grant or deny an iron mining permit or a related DNR
approval or a final decision on the EIS for a proposed iron mine and the person
seeking the hearing requests the hearing within 30 days after DNR issues the
decision on the iron mining permit application. One consolidated hearing is held on
all of the issues raised by persons requesting a hearing.
The bill requires the hearing examiner presiding over the contested case
hearing to issue a final decision no more than 150 days after DNR issues its decision.
If the hearing examiner does not meet this deadline, DNR's decision is affirmed.
Under the bill, the hearing examiner may not issue an order prohibiting activity
authorized under the DNR decision that is being reviewed in the hearing.
Under current law, if a hearing examiner finds that a claim is frivolous, the
hearing examiner is required to award the successful party the costs and reasonable
attorney fees that are directly attributable to responding to the claim. To find a that
a claim is frivolous, the hearing examiner must find that the claim was made in bad
faith, solely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring another or that the
party or the party's attorney knew, or should have known, that the claim was without
any reasonable basis in law and could not be supported by a good faith argument for
an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
This bill adds that a hearing examiner may find that a claim is frivolous in a
proceeding relating to iron mining if the hearing examiner finds that the claim was
made primarily for the purpose of causing delay to an activity authorized under an
approval that is the subject of the hearing.
Current law authorizes citizen suits against a person alleged to be in violation
of the metallic mining laws and against DNR when there is alleged to be a failure of
DNR to perform a duty under those laws.
The bill does not provide for citizen suits related to iron mining.
Wetlands
This bill makes various changes in current law relating to iron mining and
impacts to wetlands and establishes different requirements than those found under
current law. All of the changes explained below regarding wetlands apply only to
wetlands that are impacted by iron mining.
Overview of the wetland permitting process
Under current law, with certain exceptions, no person may discharge dredged
or fill material into a wetland unless the discharged is authorized by a wetland
general permit or wetland individual permit issued by DNR. DNR may not issue a
individual permit or authorize a discharge under a general permit unless DNR
determines that the discharge will comply with all applicable water quality
standards. Current law requires that DNR issue statewide general permits for
various types of discharges. These include general permits covering discharges that
affect not more than two acres of wetland and that are necessary for dewatering or
for the treatment of hazardous waste or toxic pollutants provided that hazardous
waste or toxic pollutants are not part of the discharge. If a person cannot, or chooses
not to seek authorization to, proceed under a general permit, the person may apply
for an wetland individual permit. Also, DNR may require a person to apply for an
individual permit if DNR determines that additional restrictions on the discharge
are required in order to assure that no significant adverse impacts to wetland
functional values will occur.
Wetland water quality standards
Wetland water quality standards that are promulgated as rules by DNR
require that various functional values that are provided by wetlands be protected
from adverse impacts. These functional values include providing protection from
flooding, recharging groundwaters, providing habitat for wildlife, and providing
protection to shorelines from erosion. Current law also sets forth criteria to be used
to assure the maintenance or enhancement of these functional values. These criteria
include requiring that certain solids, debris, or toxic substances be absent. This bill
incorporates all of the functional values and criteria that are contained in the DNR
rules for water quality standards for wetlands.
Wetland individual permits
The bill creates separate provisions for issuing wetland individual permits that
apply to wetlands that are affected by an iron mining operation. These provisions
contain somewhat different requirements than those found under current law that
are applicable to wetland individual permits in general.
Under current law and under the bill, the person applying for a wetland
individual permit must include in the application for DNR's review an analysis of the
practicable alternatives that will avoid and minimize the adverse impacts of the
discharge on the wetland's functional values and that will not result in any other
significant adverse environmental consequences. Under current law, DNR limits its
review to the practicable alternatives that are located at or that are adjacent to the
discharge site if the proposed project that will cause the discharge will result in a
demonstrable economic public benefit, if the proposed project is for a facility that is
in existence at the time the application is filed, or if the proposed project will occur
in an industrial park. Under the bill, DNR limits its review of practicable
alternatives only if the proposed project will result in a demonstrable economic
public benefit.
Also in current law and under the bill, DNR in its review must consider the
direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts that may occur to wetland functional
values, the net positive or negative impact of the proposed project, and the impact
that will result from the mitigation that is required (see below).
The bill also requires that, in evaluating the significant adverse impacts as part
of its review, DNR must compare the functional values of the wetlands that will be
impacted by the mining site with other wetlands and water bodies in the region.
Under current law, DNR may, but is not required to, issue a wetland individual
permit if it finds that the proposed project represents the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative, taking into consideration practicable alternatives
that avoid wetland impacts; that all practicable measures to minimize adverse
impacts will be taken; and that the project will not result in significant adverse
impacts to wetland functional values or to water quality or in other significant
adverse environmental consequences. Under the bill, DNR must issue a wetland
individual permit if it finds that the project will meet these requirements. Also, the
bill specifically requires DNR to issue the permit if any significant adverse impact
to wetland functional values that remains after the impacts are avoided or
minimized to the extent practicable will be compensated for under a mitigation
program (see below).
Other approvals that require a wetland impact evaluation
Under this bill, some of the provisions that apply to wetland individual permits
apply to other DNR approvals that regulate activities affecting wetlands, other than
discharges of dredged or fill material, and that require an evaluation of the impact
on the wetland. Under the bill, DNR may not issue such an approval unless DNR
determines that the activity will comply with all the applicable wetland water
quality standards that are described above. The bill also requires DNR to go through
the same process in reviewing an application for one of these other approvals as is
required for wetland individual permits. After completing the reviewing process, the
department may not deny the approval on the basis of the impacts from the activity
on the wetland if it finds that the proposed project represents the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative, taking into consideration
practicable alternatives that avoid wetland impacts; that all practicable measures
to minimize adverse wetland impacts will be taken; and that the project will not
result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functional values or to water quality
or in other significant adverse environmental consequences. Also, the bill prohibits
DNR from denying the approval permit if any significant adverse impact to wetland
functional values that will remain after the impacts are avoided or minimized to the
extent practicable will be compensated for under a mitigation program (see below).
Wetland general permits
Current law requires that DNR issue statewide general permits for various
types of discharges of dredged and fill material into wetlands. These include general
permits covering discharges that affect not more than two acres of wetland and that
are necessary for dewatering or for the treatment of hazardous waste or toxic
pollutants provided that hazardous waste or toxic pollutants are not part of the
discharge. The general permits also include discharges that affect not more than
10,000 square feet of wetlands that are part of developments for commercial,
residential, agricultural, municipal, or recreational purposes. In order to proceed
with a discharge that is authorized under a general permit, a person has to give
written notification to DNR not less that 30 days before beginning the discharge. If,
within 30 days after receiving the application, DNR does not either request
additional information or inform the person giving notification that a wetland
individual permit will be required, the person may proceed with the discharge
without any further authorization from DNR.
These provisions relating to general permits also apply to discharges of dredged
and fill materials into wetlands that are associated with iron mining except that a
person may not proceed with a discharge until the mining permit is issued.
Discharges of dredged or fill material into wetland subject to federal
jurisdiction
Under federal law, activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill material
into wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction (federal wetlands) must comply with
certain guidelines contained in regulations promulgated by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency in order for a federal permit to be issued by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). Before a federal permit may be issued, DNR
must issue a water quality certification. Under current law, a wetland individual or
general permit issued by DNR that authorizes a discharge of dredged or fill material
constitutes water quality certification for federal purposes. Under the bill, a wetland
individual permit or other approval for which a wetland impact evaluation is
required constitutes a federal water quality certification for a federal wetland.
Mitigation
Under current law, mitigation is required as part of a wetland individual
permit. Mitigation may be accomplished by creating, enhancing, preserving, or
restoring a wetland in order to compensate for adverse impacts to other wetlands.
The mitigation program established by DNR must allow as mitigation the
purchasing of credits from a mitigation bank established in the state and completing
actual mitigation within the same watershed as the discharge site or within one-
half mile of the discharge site if not in the same watershed. A wetland mitigation
bank is a system of accounting for wetland loss that includes one or more sites where
wetlands are improved to provide transferable credits to be subsequently applied to
offset adverse impacts to other wetlands. Current law sets a minimum ratio of at
least 1.2 acres of mitigation for each acre affected by a discharge. The mitigation
program may also include an in lieu fee subprogram, if one is established by DNR.
The in lieu fee subprogram is a program under which payments are made to DNR
or another entity for the purposes of restoring, enhancing, creating, or preserving
wetlands or other water resource features. Wetlands that benefit from the in lieu fee
subprogram must be open to the public for nonmotorized activities such as hunting,
cross-country skiing, and hiking.
Under the bill, as under current law, mitigation may be accomplished by
creating, enhancing, restoring, or preserving another wetland. Under the bill,
mitigation can include a mitigation project performed by an applicant for a mining
permit, purchase of mitigation credits from a mitigation bank for a site located
anywhere in the state or from certain mitigation banks established before February
1, 2002. Mitigation can also include participation in the in lieu fee program as
described above.
Under the bill, if is not practicable or ecologically preferable to conduct
mitigation at a location on the mining site or within one-half mile of the outer
boundary of the mining site (on-site location) or if there is no on-site location that
will provide sufficient wetland acreage, DNR must allow the applicant to conduct
mitigation at a site other than an on-site location. However, If a mining operation
is located in whole or in part within the ceded territory, any mitigation, including
mitigation accomplished through the purchase of mitigation bank credits and the in
lieu fee subprogram, that is required to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands
in the ceded territory shall occur within the ceded territory. The bill defines "ceded
territory" to be the territory located in the state that was ceded by the Chippewa
Indians to the United States in two treaties in 1837 and 1842. The bill sets a
maximum ratio of 1.5 acres of mitigation for each acre of adversely impacted
wetland.
The bill establishes a different procedure for reviewing mitigation measures for
a federal wetland. Under the bill, DNR reviews the applicable mitigation measures
under federal law and determines whether DNR has reasonable assurance that
these measures will compensate for any significant adverse impacts to wetland
functional values, any significant adverse impacts to water quality, and any other
significant adverse environmental consequences (significant adverse effects). If
DNR determines it has reasonable assurance that the mitigation measures will
compensate for these significant adverse effects, DNR may not impose any
additional conditions. If DNR determines that it does not have reasonable
assurance, it may impose additional conditions, but these are limited to those that
are necessary to compensate for any remaining significant adverse effects. The bill
also provides that DNR may not increase the number of acres to be mitigated under
the federal compensatory mitigation requirements.
Exemptions
Under current law, certain activities in wetlands do not require authorization
under a wetland individual permit. These activities include normal farming,
silviculture, and ranching activities and certain activities related to drainage and
irrigation ditches, temporary mining roads, and damaged parts of structures that
are in use of a wetland. Under current law, these activities lose the exemption under
certain circumstances, such as using a wetland for a use for which it was not
previously used or conducting an activity that may impair the flow of a wetland.
Under the bill, some of these exemptions apply to iron mining activities. However,
the provision regarding losing an exemption does not apply. Instead, the exemptions
only apply if the person conducting the activity minimizes the adverse effect to the
environment.
Under current rules promulgated by the DNR, certain artificial wetlands are
exempt from the wetland permitting requirements unless DNR determines that
significant functional values are present. These exemptions include artificial
wetlands that are within active nonmetallic mining operations. Under this bill,
these same artificial wetlands are exempt from the wetland permitting
requirements, except that the exemption for mining is limited to iron mining and the
exception regarding significant functional values does not apply.
Other provisions
Under current law, for purposes of delineating the boundary of a wetland, DNR
must use the procedures contained in the wetlands delineation manual published by
the ACE. The bill provides that if the applicant has provided information to DNR
that is identified in the manual as being sufficient for determining where a wetland
is or for delineating a wetland's boundaries, DNR may visit the mining site to conduct
surveys or gather site-specific data provided that DNR does not discontinue
processing the application to do so.
Current law requires a person holding a wetland individual permit to grant an
easement to DNR or to execute a comparable legal instrument, to ensure that a
wetland that is improved under a mitigation program is not destroyed or
substantially degraded by subsequent owners. Under the bill a person who is issued
a wetland individual permit or other approval for which a wetland impact evaluation
is required must grant such an easement or execute such an instrument, and DNR
must suspend the wetland permit or approval if the permit or approval holder fails
to grant the easement or execute the instrument within the time limit set forth in
the mining permit.
Groundwater quality
Groundwater quality standards
Under current law, DNR and the Department of Health Services (DHS)
establish groundwater quality standards, consisting of enforcement standards and
preventive action limits, for substances that contaminate groundwater. The
preventive action limit for a substance is 10 percent, 20 percent, or 50 percent of the
enforcement limit depending on the type of substance.
Under this bill, the enforcement standards and preventive action limits
established by DNR and DHS continue to apply to iron mining operations, but the
bill changes the manner in which they apply.
Point of standards application
Current law generally requires each state regulatory agency, including DNR,
to promulgate rules containing design and operational criteria for facilities and
activities affecting groundwater that are designed, to the extent technically and
economically feasible, to minimize the level of substances in groundwater and to
maintain compliance with preventive action limits, unless compliance with the
preventive action limits is not technically and economically feasible. Current law
requires each regulatory agency to promulgate rules that specify the range of
responses that the regulatory agency may take or that it may require the person
controlling a facility or activity to take if a preventive action limit is attained or
exceeded at what is called a point of standards application. Under current law and
under this bill, any point at which groundwater is monitored is a point of standards
application to determine whether a preventive action limit has been attained or
exceeded.
Current law generally prohibits a regulatory agency from promulgating rules
containing design and operational criteria that allow an enforcement standard to be
exceeded at a point of standards application. Under current law and under this bill,
for determining whether an enforcement standard has been attained or exceeded, a
point of standards application is any point beyond the boundary of the property on
which the regulated facility or activity is located, any point of present groundwater
use, and, for certain facilities, such as waste disposal facilities, any point beyond a
three-dimensional design management zone (DMZ) established by DNR by rule.
Design management zone
Under DNR's rules, the horizontal dimensions of a DMZ vary depending on the
type of facility. For a metallic mining waste site, the horizontal distance to the
boundary of the DMZ is generally 1,200 feet from the outer waste boundary or at the
boundary of the property owned or leased by the applicant, whichever distance is
less. For a metallic surface mine, the horizontal distance to the boundary of the DMZ
is generally 1,200 feet from the edge of the mining excavation or at the property
boundary, whichever distance is less. For other mining facilities, the horizontal
distance to the boundary of the DMZ is generally 150 feet from the edge of the facility
or at the property boundary, whichever distance is less. Generally, the smaller the
DMZ, the more likely that a preventive action limit or enforcement standard will be
attained or exceeded at the boundary and the more likely that the operator will be
required to implement a response.
Under this bill, for an iron mining site, the horizontal distance to the boundary
of the DMZ is generally 1,200 feet from the engineered structures of a mining waste
site, including any wastewater and sludge storage or treatment lagoon, the edge of
the mine and adjacent mine mill and ferrous mineral processing and other facilities
or at the property boundary, whichever distance is less.
Under current rules, DNR may reduce the horizontal distance to the boundary
of the DMZ on a metallic mining site if certain conditions are met, but may not
expand it.
