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.
Under the bill, DNR may not reduce the horizontal distance to the boundary of
the DMZ on an iron mining site but may expand it by an additional 1,200 feet in any
direction if DNR determines that preventive action limits and enforcement
standards will be met at the boundary of the expanded DMZ and that preventive
action limits and enforcement standards cannot be met at the boundary of the DMZ
if it is not expanded.
Under DNR's rules, a DMZ extends vertically from the land surface through all
saturated geological formations. Under the bill, the vertical distance to the boundary
of the DMZ for an iron mining site extends no deeper than 1,000 feet into the
Precambrian bedrock or than the final depth of the mining excavation, whichever is
greater.
Mandatory intervention boundary
Currently, for metallic mining waste sites and metallic mines, in addition to the
DMZ, DNR's rules provide for a mandatory intervention boundary that is 150 feet
from the outer waste boundary or the edge of the mine. Under the rules, if a
preventive action limit or an enforcement standard is exceeded beyond the
mandatory intervention boundary, DNR must require a response by the operator.
Under the bill, the horizontal distance to the mandatory intervention boundary
for an iron mining site is generally 300 feet from the outer waste boundary or the
outer edge of the excavation. The bill authorizes DNR to reduce the mandatory
intervention boundary by up to 150 feet if it determines that the reduction is
necessary to adequately identify and respond to potential groundwater quality
issues. Under the bill, if a preventive action limit or enforcement standard is
exceeded beyond the mandatory intervention boundary, DNR must require a
response by the operator.
Response when preventive action limit is attained or exceeded
Under DNR's groundwater rules, when a preventive action limit is attained or
exceeded at a point of standards application, DNR must determine the appropriate
response, taking into consideration the response proposed by the operator. The
response must be designed and implemented to minimize the concentration of the
substance in groundwater at the point of standards application to the extent feasible,
to regain and maintain compliance with the preventive action limit, and to ensure
that the enforcement standard is not attained or exceeded at the point of standards
application. DNR's rules specify a range of responses for when a preventive action
limit is attained or exceeded at a point of standards application, including requiring
a revision of operational procedures and requiring remedial action to restore
groundwater quality.
Under the bill, when a preventive action limit is attained or exceeded at a point
of standards application and the quality of groundwater is statistically significantly
different from the quality of the groundwater unaffected by the iron mining, DNR
must evaluate the range of responses proposed by the operator, including alternate
responses to the responses specified in DNR's rules, and designate the appropriate
response. DNR may determine that no response is necessary if it determines that
the preventive action limit will not be attained or exceeded at any point outside the
DMZ or, in some cases, if the natural concentration of the substance is above the
preventive action limit.
Response when enforcement standard is attained or exceeded
Under DNR's groundwater rules, when an enforcement standard is attained or
exceeded at a point of standards application for a solid or hazardous waste facility,
DNR must require responses as necessary to prevent any new releases of the
substance from traveling beyond the DMZ and to restore the contaminated
groundwater within a reasonable period. When an enforcement standard is attained
or exceeded at a point of standards application for a facility that is not a solid or
hazardous waste facility, DNR must generally prohibit the activity that uses or
produces the substance and require remedial actions, unless it can be shown that an
alternative response will achieve compliance with the enforcement standard at the
point of standards application.
Under the bill, for an iron mining operation when an enforcement standard is
attained or exceeded at a point of standards application and the quality of
groundwater is statistically significantly different from the quality of the
groundwater unaffected by the iron mining, DNR must evaluate the operator's
proposed range of responses and designate an appropriate response. DNR may not
prohibit an activity or require closure of a mining waste site unless DNR determines
that no other remedial action would prevent the violation of the enforcement
standard at the point of standards application.
Disposal of mining waste
Approval of facility
Under current law, no person may construct or operate a solid waste disposal
facility, such as a landfill, without the approval of DNR under the solid waste
statutes and rules. The rules under which metallic mining waste facilities are
regulated differ in some ways from the rules for other solid waste facilities.
Under this bill, the current solid waste laws do not apply to iron mining waste
facilities. Instead, the standards for an iron mining waste facility are specified in the
iron mining laws created in the bill and the process for approving an iron mining
waste facility is part of the process for approving the iron mining permit. Under the
bill, if a mining site will include a disposal facility for waste that is not mining waste,
such as trash from an office or cafeteria, the current solid waste laws apply to that
disposal facility.
Location of facility
Current law requires DNR to promulgate rules for the location of solid waste
facilities. Unless DNR grants an exemption, as described below (in the section on
exemptions), the rules prohibit the location of a mining waste site in any of the
following areas: 1) within 1,000 feet of a state trunk highway, a state park or scenic
easement or overlook, a scenic or wild river, or a hiking or bike trail, unless the
proposed waste site is visually inconspicuous or is screened; 2) within an area
designated in the statutes as being unsuitable for surface mining, such as a
wilderness area, a wildlife refuge, or a state or national park; 3) within 200 feet of
the property boundary; 4) within a floodplain; 5) within 300 feet of a navigable river
or stream; 6) within 1,000 feet of a lake; or 7) within 1,200 feet of a private or public
water supply well.
Under this bill, the limits on the location of a mining waste site do not apply to
the portion of an iron mine that is backfilled with mining waste. Otherwise, the bill
includes the first, third, fourth, and seventh prohibitions described above. The bill
does not prohibit locating an iron mining waste site in an area designated in the
statutes as being unsuitable for surface mining. (See the discussion of unsuitability
under Grant or denial of mining permit,
Grounds for denial, above.) Also, the
bill allows an activity associated with an iron mining waste site to be located within
300 feet of a navigable river or stream or within 1,000 feet of a lake if DNR approves
the activity under the provisions of the bill related to wetlands, water withdrawals,
or navigable waters.
Waste site feasibility study and plan of operation
The current solid waste statutes require an applicant for the approval of a solid
waste disposal facility to submit a waste site feasibility study that demonstrates the
suitability of the site for the disposal of solid waste and a plan of operation for the
facility. DNR's rules concerning metallic mining waste facilities contain extensive
requirements for the waste site feasibility study and plan of operation.
This bill requires an applicant for an iron mining permit to submit a waste site
feasibility study and plan of operation as part of the application for the mining
permit. The bill contains extensive requirements for the waste site feasibility study
and plan of operation, many of which are similar to the requirements in DNR's
current rules. Some of the technical requirements in the bill differ from the current
rules.
The bill requires the applicant to perform analyses to assess the potential
environmental impact of mining waste handling, storage, and disposal. The
applicant must conduct investigations on the proposed waste site and in the
laboratory to determine the characteristics of the site through measures such as soil
borings and tests and determining groundwater levels and flow patterns and
premining groundwater quality. The applicant must provide information about the
ecosystems and climatology in the vicinity of the proposed mining waste site and
about the geology, zoning, and land use in the area.
Under the bill, the applicant must submit a proposed waste site design that
includes proposed methods for controlling water that has been contaminated by
dissolved materials (leachate) and for controlling access to the facility; engineering
plans for the iron mining waste facility; and a description of typical daily operations
of the facility.
Proof of financial responsibility
Under current law and under this bill, before beginning mining the operator
must furnish to DNR a bond or other security in an amount sufficient to cover the
cost of reclamation of the mining site, in relation to the portion of the mining site that
will be disturbed at the end of the following year.
Current law also requires the operator of a mining waste facility to provide
proof of financial responsibility for the costs of the care, maintenance, and
monitoring of the facility after it is closed (long-term care). The requirement to
provide proof of financial responsibility for long-term care continues until DNR
terminates that requirement, which it may not do until at least 40 years after closure
of the mine.
Under this bill, the operator of an iron mining waste facility is also required to
provide proof of financial responsibility for the costs of the long-term care of the
facility. Under the bill, the requirement to provide proof of financial responsibility
for long-term care of the mining waste facility terminates after 40 years.
Water withdrawals
Under current law
There are several laws that may currently apply to withdrawals of groundwater
or surface water.
