Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
------- ----------
The Reporton theMiningSimulationProject
Executive
Summary
Authors:E. K. Lehmann and Associates, Inc.Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesMinnesota Pollution Control AgencyProject Environment Foundation
January 1990
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp
REPORT ONTHE MINING SIMULATION PROJECT
by
IVIinnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Project Environment Foundation
Ernest K. Lehmann & Associates, Inc.
January 1990
._~-----_. __..-.-._------ _. __...._-------,
- iii
REPORT ONTHE MINING SIlVIULATION PROJECT
ABSTRACT
This cooperative study has been undertaken by representatives of theenvironmental community, the mining industry, the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)in order to identify and resolve environmental issues associated with base andprecious metal mining in a neutral atmosphere before a commercial miningdevelopment is announced. The study is an outgrowth of the 1987-88Minnesota Minerals Forum sponsored by the Blandin Foundation. Theparticipants reviewed the existing permitting and environmental reviewprocesses and visited mining operations in other areas of the country and ofCanada which had attributes similar to those that might be encountered in anoperation in Minnesota. In addition, the MPCA prepared a literature study onthe environmental effects of nonferrous mining. Central to the study hasbeen testing Minnesota's as-yet-untried nonferrous mining regulatory programusing three hypothetical mining developments sited in environmentallysensitive areas where future mining could occur. Results includeidentification of critical paths for regulatory decision making, identification ofparticularly sensitive environmental issues that will need continueddeliberation before resolution, and characterization of data necessary forenvironmental review and permitting decisions. Consensus based conclusionshave been reached on aspects of seven major issue areas: exploratorydrilling; environmental review and permitting processes and procedures;land-use conflicts; water quality and quantity; air quality; design operation,closure and postclosure care; and financial assurance.
- .._-~------------------------------------------.....
- v
REPORT ONTHE MINING SIMULATION PROJECT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Increasing sensitivity to environmental concerns on the part of thepublic, special-interest groups, government and industry, coupled with anincreasingly litigious and adversarial climate often characterized by oppositionto new industrial development, mandates the search for ways to anticipate,mitigate and resolve environmental conflicts in order to facilitate appropriateand environmentally-sound economic development. This is particularly true inthe area of new mineral developments.
Mineral production has long been a significant part of the economic andsocial fabric of Minnesota. Since the late 19th century the state has been theleading U. S. producer of iron ore as well as producing important amounts ofaggregate, dimension stone, silica sands and heavy clays.
Minnesota has significant unexplored and undeveloped potential foradditional mineral production. Nonferrous mineral exploration began in the1860s with the search for gold in Minnesota. In the 1950s and 1960s exploration for copper-nickel resulted in the identification of two large low-gradedeposits whose development was then deferred to allow for a genericenvironmental study. At the conclusion of this study, the economics of thebase metal industry had changed. The development of these deposits hasbeen indefinitely postponed.
Since 1980, interest in nonferrous mineral exploration, principally forgold, base-metal sulfides and platinum-group metals, has been heightened bydiscoveries and developments in Ontario, Manitoba and Wisconsin, as well asby evolving geological concepts regarding deposits of such metals. However,mineral exploration in Minnesota has been perceived by industry to behampered by an adverse tax structure, problems of land availability and apotentially unfriendly regulatory climate.
In September 1987, in order to examine factors affecting development ofthe state's mineral resources, the Blandin Foundation, a Grand Rapids-basedphilanthropic organization, convened the Minnesota Minerals Forum. Participants in the Forum included senior state agency officials and representativesof the mining industry, academic community and environmental groups.
The Forum participants believed that for the nonferrous and preciousmetals industry, tax issues had been addressed by bills passed during the1987 legislative session. A major item of concern, particularly to industry,was a regulatory climate which could potentially inhibit mineral development.Though there is in place in Minnesota an operating body of rules and
- vi
precedents governing iron mImng, no such precedents exist for the nonferrous and precious metals industry. Accordingly, a unique project wasdeveloped to examine the as-yet-untested regulatory framework through aseries of hypothetical "case studies," thereby evaluating the environmentalreview and permitting process for several geologically and economicallyrealistic though nonexistent mine developments.
A working group for this project was formed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA), the environmental community as represented by Project EnvironmentFoundation (PEF), and mineral industry interests represented by Ernest K.Lehmann & Associates, Inc. (ELA), a Minneapolis-based geological consultingfirm.
The working group formulated the following objectives for the proposedNonferrous Mining Project:
1. Identify the environmental issues associated with precious- andbase-metal mining.
2. Anticipate the data needed by industry and government to addressthose issues.
3. Determine shortcomings and duplication in the regulatory process toreduce costs and time requirements for industry and governmentwhile ensuring effective environmental safeguards.
4. Educate government, the environmental community and industryabout the economic impact of development on the state's economyand on the mining industry.
5. Help all participants better prepare for participating in thepermitting process.
6. Develop state policies to better address environmental and economicissues that may be identified during the study.
In order to fund the project, the two state agencies, DNR and MPCA,received an appropriation of $185,000 from the Minnesota Legislature. ProjectEnvironment Foundation and ELA jointly requested and received funding by amajor grant from the Blandin Foundation, smaller grants from several otherfoundations and donations from a number of mining companies, servicecompanies and individuals; approximately $130,000 in private funding wasraised. A number of other parties assisted the industry group in thetechnical aspects of the project, and several major state and nationalenvironmental groups assisted PEF in its work.
The project activities carried out included the following:
- - - - ---------------- - - - - --- -
- vii
1. An initial conference sponsored by the regulatory agencies toreview the existing regulatory process.
2. Visits by participants to active mining operations in the U. S. andCanada that have particular attributes similar to what would beexpected in new mining developments in Minnesota.
3. The development, review, discussion and analysis of three hypothetical mining case studies.
4. A review of the literature on environmental impacts of base- andprecious-metal mining.
5. An analysis of the environmental review and permitting process andconstruction of a chart depicting the existing process.
6. Identification and examination of major issue areas.
7. Preparation of a report that includes conclusions and recommendations of the participants.
The first volume of this report discusses the work done and the conclusions and recommendations of the project team. Volume II contains appendicesincluding notes on field trips, the actual case studies and formal responses,lists of participants and the interagency memorandum of understanding.Volume III is the literature study of environmental impacts prepared by theMPCA.
Field trips to operating mines were undertaken because they permittedparticipants to view problems of existing operations, assess solutions appliedand learn from the experience of others.
In order to focus analysis and discussion, three realistic, site-specific,but hypothetical mine models were developed by the industry representative:
1. An underground platinum-palladium mine located in the Duluthgabbro complex. The proposed site is within an area that drainsinto the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area. Both existingiron mining areas and areas of high recreational values (mainlysport fishing) border the site. In addition, it is a wolf habitatarea. Mining at 600 tons per day (tpd) would be by room-andpillar methods. A bulk flotation concentrate would be producedwhich would be shipped out of state or out of the country forsmelting.
2. A 4000-tpd copper-zinc-gold-silver massive-sulfide deposit inArchean greenstones located in a terminal moraine area. The areawhere the hypothetical deposit is located has summer cabin sites,
- viii
wetlands and streams, recreational value and timber value. Thedeposit was postulated as a open pit mine initially with conversionto underground mining after seven years. A three-productflotation mill was assumed, with all products shipped out of statefor smelting.
3. An arsenical gold deposit associated with an Archean iron formation, ~
located in and adjacent to one of Minnesota's environmentallysignificant "patterned" peatlands. This deposit was postulated tobe mined by underground methods at a rate of 2000 tpd with aprojected mine life of 11 years. The ores were to be treated by acyanide agitation leach with gold recovery by the Merrill-Croweprocess.
Each case study was prepared in written form (Volume II) and includeda description of the site characteristics and mining and treatment plans.Other physical and operating characteristics were specified as well. Maps andsections were provided, as were data on geology, soils, hydrology, thecomposition of potential waste, tailings, processing, reagents used, socioeconomic impacts and other factors.
Each case was then discussed by the participants in a one-day session.These sessions were in part a simulation of an initial "scoping session 11 thatmight occur at the outset of agency review of a project. As many as 30 to 40persons from the agencies and environmental and industry groups attendedeach session. In addition to discussions, the agencies and the environmentalcommunity presented prepared written comments. (Volume II)
Out of the discussions of the cases grew a graphic representation of theenvironmental review and permitting process, in the form of a chart (Figure1) • The development of this timetable has been essential to an understandingby all parties of the existing process and regulations. It is a key to workingthrough that process most efficiently.
The chart is based on the environmental review and permitting requirements as required by law and regulation. It outlines agency timetables andidentifies actions and major data required of the project sponsor, as well asof the regulatory agencies. The time frame is 11 optimistic 1l in that itpostulates that data needs will be met adequately and in a timely manner bythe sponsor. It also assumes that there are no legal challenges resulting inadditional public hearings or court procedures.
The chart suggests areas for possible substantive simplification andimprovement of the review process. These include the possibility of combinedhearings for major permits and the environmental review process, singlereports and interrelated data sets.
- ix
Discussion and analysis brought about by the case-study review and theconstruction of the flow chart suggested seven major issue areas. Thesewere discussed at length among the participants and their individual viewsare presented in Section 5 of the report. These issue areas are:
Exploratory DrillingEnvironmental Review and Permitting Processes and ProceduresLand-use ConflictsWater Quality and QuantityAir QualityDesign/Operation/ Closure/Postclosure CareFinancial Assurance
Some consensus conclusions and recommendations have been reached in each'.major issue area.
Major conclusions and agreements are:
1. Exploratory Drilling. Though no instances of ground watercontamination from exploratory drilling are known in the state, afurther review of drilling additives by the Minnesota Department ofHealth is recommended.
2. Environmental Review and Permitting Processes and Procedures. InMinnesota, two agencies have primary permitting authority formining. A number of other state, federal and local authorities areinvolved in permits as well. Therefore, when a mining proposal issubmitted for initial review, we recommend that an existing interagency (DNR and MPCA) coordinating committee establish a reviewand permitting team; standardize map, data and monitoring needs;develop a project-specific timetable; and evaluate the practicality ofjoint permit applications (including permit plans) and hearings forvarious permits.
Early and frequent involvement of local units of government,the public and special-interest groups is highly desirable and needsto be fostered. We suggest the formation by the project sponsor oflocal or regional advisory boards.
Everyone should play by the same rules; that is, theregulations as they exist at the time of the application. In otherwords, lI end runs" by any of the parties do more harm than goodin terms of credibility of the participants and the process. SuchlI end runs ll will probably slow down, rather than expedite, theprocess.
- x
3. Land-use Conflicts. Land-use conflicts triggered by a mmmgproposal probably represent the most difficult conflicts to resolve.This is largely because the judgments involved in such conflicts aresubjective and value-based. To facilitate evaluation of the merits ofvarious viewpoints in these difficult matters, we recommend thatMinnesota's environmental review rules should be amended torequire a cost!benefit analysis based on an inventory of all costsand benefits, including those that are not quantifiable in dollarterms.
4. Water Quality and Quantity. In technical terms these encompass themost significant probable impacts of new mining development. Weconclude that minimization of these impacts will require adequatebase-line monitoring, characterization of expected mine wastes,determination of receiving water criteria, determination ofoperating procedures and mitigative measures, and collection ofoperational and postclosure monitoring data. The existing andproposed rules address these issues.
5. Air Quality. Current regulations appear to be sufficient to handleexpected impacts of mining and milling operations.
6. Design!Operation! Closure!Postclosure Care. Applicants for permitsare required to submit mine design data, operational plans, closure(reclamation) plans, and postclosure care plans. In order toproduce these effectively, data and information needs of theagencies must be identified and coordinated early in the process.Plans must be updated periodically during the life of the operation.At the time of closure, the closure plan will be reviewed andimplemented. The agencies will evaluate the possibility of using ajoint closure plan.
If initial waste characterization studies are not conclusive as to acidproduction potential, metal release or other hazards, regulatorydecisions regarding waste disposal and treatment should be made ina conservative manner.
7. Financial Assurance. Assurance of the sponsor's financial ability tomeet regulatory obligations will be required. However, we believethat this can be provided in a variety of forms, that is, "bonds"are not the only way such assurance can be provided. However,such assurance must reflect projected closure and postclosure costsas well as credibIe accident clean-up costs.
We further conclude that the Mining Simulation Project has constituted aunique cooperative effort by industry, government and the environmentalcommunity to examine the environmental and regulatory concerns related to
- xi
the potential for a new base- and precious-metal mining industry inMinnesota.
We also conclude that the use of a hypothetical II case study" approachhas allowed participants to focus on real issues without encountering themake-or-break environment of an actual development project. It gave theparticipants a deeper understanding of the potential benefits and costs of newmining developments.
The construction of a chart depicting the existing permitting andenvironmental review process has helped develop consensus on possible waysto improve the regulatory process to the benefit of the responsible agencies,industry, the public and the environment.
tI
2.03.04.0
Report onThe Mining Simulation Project
Volume ITable of Contents
ABSTRACT . • . . • • . • • .EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . ••.L 0 INTRODUCTION • • • • • . . • • •
L 1 Purpose of the Project. • • • • • • •• ••••.1.2 History of Nonferrous and Precious Metals
Exploration in Minnesota • . • • • • • .1.3 History of the Project. . . . . • • .1.4 Financial Support of the Project. • • • •L 5 The Moderator. • • • . • • •MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT • • • • •PRESS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS •THE PROCESS . . . • • . • • •4.1 Introduction ••...•••4.2 Review of the Existing Regulatory Process.4.3 Visits to Existing Mines • • • • • . • . . . . . •4.4 Development of the Case Studies. •••• •4.5 Design of the Case Studies • • . • . • . . . . • .4.6 Field Trip to Case Study Sites4.7 Discussion of the Cases4.8 Literature Study.4.9 Wrap-up Sessions
5.0 MAJOR ISSUES. • • •5.1 Exploratory Drilling. . • • • •5.2 Environmental Review and Permitting Process/Procedure •5.3 Land Use ••• • ••••.•••.5.4 Water .5 .5 Air. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.6 Design/Operation/Closure/Postclosure Care •••.5. 7 Financial Assurance • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
6.0 CRITICAL PATH AND DATA REQUIREMENTS ••.6.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ....6.2 General Comments on Construction of the Chart . . • . •6.3 Limitations • . . • • • . • • • . • • • •6.4 Environmental Review Process • . • • • • • • •6.5 DNR Permits .6.6 Critical Decision Paths and Data Requirements for
MPCA Permits . • • • • • . • . • • •6.7 Project Sponsor's Activities • • • . • . • • . • •
7.0 JOINT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ••.•7.1 Conclusions and Recommendations about the
Environmental Review and Permitting Process. •7.2 Conclusions as to Methodology of the Study .
8.0 GLOSSARY .
- xii
Page No.ivvi11
136789
101010111314151516161818273547636673777779798081
818485
858789
xiii
REPORT ONTHE MINING SIMULATION PROJECT
VOLUME IIAppendices to the Final Report: Non Ferrous Mineral Project
CONTENTS
Appendix A: Documents covering scope and purpose of the project, andrelationships between the PCA and DNR
Appendix A-I: Memorandum of Agreement between the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency (PCA) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources(DNR)
Appendix A-2: Scope of work by the PCA and the DNR
Appendix A-3: Project proposal by Ernest K. Lehmann & Associates, Inc. (ELA)and Project Environment Foundation (PEF)
Appendix B: Field trip reports and participants
Appendix B-1: Field trip reports
Appendix B-2: Field trip participants in site visit to hypothetical minesites
Appendix C: The mining case studies with PCA, DNR and environmentalists'comments
Appendix C-l: Introduction to the mining simulation case studies
Appendix C-2: Roaring Platinum case and comments
Appendix C-3: Large Mouth case and comments
Appendix C-4 Jeep Trail case and comments
Appendix D: Advisory group participants
Appendix D-l: Environmental Mining Policy Advisory Group participants
Appendix D-2: Industry Advisory Panel
Appendix E: The nonferrous Mining and Processing Industry: A Review ofLiterature and Other Information (separate volume)
9001085ABOOOO
xiv
REPORT ONTHE MINING SIMULATION PROJECT
VOLUME IIIThe Nonferrous Mining and processing Industry:
A Review of Literature and Other Information
CONTENTS
Page Number
INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •MINING IMPACTS IDENTIFIED in the REGIONAL COPPER-NICKEL STUDYMINNESOTA GEOLOGY • • • •• • • • • • • •MINERAL COMMODITIES of INTEREST in MINNESOTA •DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY • • • • • •POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS . • • • •SMELTING • • • • • • • • • •• .•••• • • • • • •
Components of Smelting (Copper-Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Gold, SilverPlatinum Group Metals) • • • • • •
Machinery • • • • • • • • • • • • . •Waste Streams (Copper-Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver,
Platinum Group Metals) • • •Environmental Control of Wastes (Copper-Nickel, Lead, Zinc,
Gold, Silver, Platinum Group Metals) • • •• • • •Hydrometallurgy (Copper-Nickel, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver
Platinum Group Metals) • • • • • • • • •Smelting in Minnesota • • • • • • • • • ••Case Study: The Sudbury Smelter Complex
POWER PLANTS • • • • • • • • • •ACID DEPOSITION • • • • • • • • •POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Mine Dewatering • • • • • • •Gravity SeparationFlotation • • • • • • • •Cyanidation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •Tailings Basin • • • • • • • • • • • •• ••••Stockpiles and Acid Mine Drainage • •••• •Other Pollutant Sources • • • •• •• • • • • • • •Permitting • • • • • • • • • • •
MINNESOTA HAZARDOUS WASTE REQUIREMENTS •REGULATION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •REFERENCES • • • • • • ••••••••• • •APPENDICES • • • • • • • • • • • •GLOSSARY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS • • • • •
9001085ABOOOO
158
17194354
5564
64
79
86889197
103112113117120130158169185195198203R-lA-lG-lL-l
IPubliQ,.;Notier0· .' SUMMARY NO'lllOE, CONSOLIDATE, .,rA t. u.C.C.~1-201(15)ALLDOOUMENTS:.. ~'-' ~ 'h'tt~J..r. OJ" ",::rnf :', '," .... ,~:-' ?11(2)(b) ATTO~NEY .o;ENf:Ill\'," .... ~"r~ u . .I.,l. 2_ r
; ;u(»."~'_·~.J":,, ;l\ no. 1·15390700
«.~ r~~ All pereons, entities, including Eagle Drugs Inc., Ballard
• (,\J~'" Trucking & Storage, all d.~fendantB who (1) were record or, J beneficial owners of any and all Documents of Title, a.spec
ifically (15) Sharee of SAFE co~moh stock, Oorporation papersAndereon.+ Advocates lBc., Church of Justice Refor~ Inc.,
. Roee of Sharon Miniettiee Inc., iricorporated under the M.S •.. 317, laws of Minhesota, patte~ned after AA, With no pecuniarygain, or State or Federal money's, .faith, good will ••••• as ofApril 21st, 1988 or thereafter or (2) who acquired during',: the!period from April 21Bt,~988 up to and·!ncluaing the ,present
;~ ,February- 20th,' 1.990, .ALL DOCU~TS OF. TITLE, which enCOMpass.~. (5) parcels ,of r~al~~~tate, a, Grave at HIll.ide, b. 1058
Sharonand.Husband,Jim-: !SU,..,.it ATe. HOMESTEAD, OFFI<;JE, :,2 paying guellitlB, owner occupiedMarineVet,~lIverStar.~obbluOTer 15 ;~earl!l, c•. 2194 Marshall 8ingle residence office
are politics and bowli~g, ' " . ' "
1, 9'-9'.--0 1 to 5 pay ing g\i~Btl!l, co"'.dn· ~i tchen etc. d. 448 De Bnoyer A".
Duple,,~.f (~C.O :"pattern,.HUD Fraud.' check Kiting, cO'-Merlclll stR~e',' _ bank, 18t'~.hk'~randt Midweet ,Fe~ S&L reoelTer Miiw~8t SATing,
-_ " e. 325 .. ·1't. !..~ild~r., (6) unit (RIOO.,pattern of che'ck ·kiting, since.. 'JU owe .1980. '. Min1.\8sota Tltle; Ckerokee', state: 1311nk, .st. Anthony state
.J.Ll. - . 'Bank.· Pro Lesbian ~Jud.ge Gear,in, 'Sheriffs Writ ReBti.tu tion .4/21/80. .
PLEAS.E ~EAD THIS SUMMARY, NOTICE CAREFULLi, THIS NO'rICE RELATES TOM.S. 211.08,,' Minn., Oonet. Art.VII sec. 1 to 5, I..,peachl'l8nt, rellto-
val froM office, .rt. X & XI, T9.xaction, A~propriation, Finance,Rulee of the Minn. Houee Art. VII, rule 7.1, ag~inBt Ra,..se~ County
Attorney Toa Foley, ~d~e~iring with state, ~ep. TOil Oetoff '. Clerk
Joeeph E. Gockoweki,' \..~ 0/d8f89.S9.nCe, Malfeasance, nonfeasance,
, influence P~~C~~'~·~P.tiifiC9' f~ll!1ifing La~d Recorde. Bince 1976,""" ,?q. '·~0 ..re: US ;" ..~...qq..""~~. '76-178 t}.tled Scarrel18' T. Miiwft9t Fed. 8&L,
1J~/J fJ." .,~V:.~ ·o~ A.. Ex .f 0,.. st. Del TXB. State Deed Stallp, Doc.~i.'.~c..·:\'),~:i~tr·10-':~~\of Title no. 1968858; dtd.. June,22, .1977, Tllxs p4~ ~~.~o .\~) . .
CO '\J"P 'b'l.', ~:'P~ Y3. 1978 TAxs 'pai", drawn, froll HOMe Fed. S&L,Dheil'~~1Ji.. 1). ...b~q C\\~ \.C'(\ ~ \.c" iJu.fltafaone banK" indioating .e."bellzmenu ae John~l'-o\)?-~qq ~~?-"P~\~O'\~""):vo~ ,finley .lawyer, r~Qlato~, county cOIIMiB~ioner" 'Ctl,ry\ <0\),,00 'f..e '\1"'t"'",~1v co~v;.J..proper.J £alBe stat~.ente,~ecorde••••••••• '
.\\. \ t- '2. ~~ J\o~· ~ ~'~'\..~ (\q' ,01, \ ~co\.'\t' :\.01\.' ,0.' Ex. Petitioners have oyer $25 thoueandC(,~..~q'" ...~()~~~'\.co't\'. ~:\>co~l 'J at COl'llller cal stat,e Bank. illegally wi theld toC ...~~~' ~~ e'2. ~~...~~ r8duce us to peonage, ixploit a sllTer star mar~v..~1'''' co't~\~1:"'\,?- :1,'0<),,6"'0Foleys failure. to ,prosec~,te, Durenbergers Senate,
, et1J)) ~ ~"'...e~'" C\.>t ,'0" ;,1 ELECTIoN, or coml1erical state ban\;{. as Peti t.toner\\\\. ).:'i}.).l~ ~ 'C-'V:l '0<) was 'OAFlanlate ~or US Senate FEU reg~ nl:>.C00234·088
is improper abuse of public trust, Foleyhae ~eld .. onto a $1,000.00for OTer 1 year, EX~, now exthortian, embell.zment are charged ••••
. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal R.Civ.P.56(c), state RUle 57" State Law 555, informia pauperiue eervimcommencing Feb. 20th, 1990_~. any' pere'on, entity who fail to answer,object will waiTe righte, as "MELLON BANK" title, v. ConservAtory,and "SAFE" Oren·O. Robbina, are PRUDENT, IN FULL COMPLIANCJ!l WITHSTATE & FEDERAL LAWS.
THIS SUMMARY notice ia not fully descripti.e oflitigation, you may inepect ALL filee, i~ ALL courte, 'ae tHe t~'BAD
BEHAVIOR O!~Ea~BJ Drugs, "may' be cause of Dfy'g L~ nder g " ,#we r~Bed , O~Of Dir.ty Money.... / ?1~ lz ~,.'I£l---ll '
~~ 8p 8. aron '5{ rre a/s/ ti1~ '~ • Cabin at I-.:J/f'~ ~Cl? I And,rlo,"- Homestead . '
Buck Lake. HC3 Box eO-B, H'~f1/A1Ct7~,~~,);tt ',050 ~lImmlt~I-$r,.P8uJ',·~N 55,HiS- - . ~. ~.
Ir-
-~c:::=>-- -- .-- :::=E= ~... --- -.- -"':%::::;,:,)..u
PortfoCio ofAnderson's
Minnesota 1\1inistersaf law
~ VOT-f ··iJJJ:'. -c ~4
.....:::..~ .Sharon and Husband, Jim -
Marine Vtl, Silver Star. Hobbits
f99C.A Lay PerS01Z 'Sa Guide To
ANTITRUST LAW
TAX-FORFEITED L\ND SALES
Cu.ssIFICATJO~OF L\~D
281.01 . t AX·FORFEITED UNOS.Sdbdi·.. ision I: Clysificllion; USe'; nch:lngt. It i~ Ih~ genaal policy or Ihis stallC
10 encourage ,h~ best UlIC of U,-·lorfeileJ lands. r~cognlllng Ihal some lands in publi~
ownef'!,hip should be relalned and mJnag::J for public b<n~lils while olher !i1nds shoulkdbe returned 10 pnvale ownership, :\11 p.lrcds o(lanJ On:umlng Iht: property of,ht: ~I;'J~In trllSI undrr the pro\l5ion~'uf :In) 1:1 ..... Ih)"'" t:\istin,g or hcrt'an~r t'1I;IClcd dcclaring 11J,~
rurlcllurc of laulls 10 Ihe ~IJIt: for ';u"l"\, Shd!1 be r(A55Ir,'~1)" Iht: ctlUnly bnard of I~wunly wherein sUl'h p:lr~ls hl" 35~r.... allun or nlll".un~ivalion.Such clanllicatirnnshall be m:lde wilh consll.leration, anlllng Olher Ihl"I:\. 10 Ihe IH( ..CIII u~c ur aJj:Jccn'tl~nl1s, 1he producti\~ily or the \011, Ihe chJracler uf rorc\t or o.lh:r ~mwl~. ;\cccs"t .
February 1'6, 1990
Dear Sir or'Madam:
The potential. for the m1n1ng of gold, silv~r, copper, zinci,platinum· and other non~ferrousmetals represents ·important ,economic opportunities for Minnesqta and to diversification ofits 'rural economy. However, such'mining operations raisequestionsaboutenvirqnmemtal impacts and thepiocepsby which.
'environmental review and permitting will: takepls;lce.·,. ' .,Under appropria'tionsfrom the '1988' ,State Legislature' and
major funding from the Blandin Foundation as.weil as' otherfoundations i companies and ind,ividuals~ the ·Minnesota Department.of Natural Resources, 'the Minne'sota Pollution Control Agency, .Project Environment Fo'undatiori and :i:::eprese'ntatives of the miningindustry uhdertooka unique ~ooperative project to study issues~elated to· environmental review and perrriitting,of 'potentialnon-terrous,and precious metals mining projects.,
The results o'f this project have' been published in a'thr'ee-volume report,~
, '.. For your information, we 'enclose wi th, 'this letter an ,"Executiye Summary of this Mining Simulatiop Project •. If youdes,ireany additional infotmation, please get intouc'h with thecontac,t people listed below.
"Sincerely 'you,rs.,
'\
Minn~sota PollutionControl Agency ,
·MliJ;M;f·Ge.rald Willett, Commissioner(contact: William J. Lynott612-296-7794)
9001081
Project Environment,Foundation ..
j)~' Q~.)ly~Gayle Peterson,Executiv~ Director(contact: Don Arnosti
"612-379-3856)
Ernest I<~ L~h:rnann& Associates, rnc.
~ t:: .;,t!!.......-,'-- =-ErnestK. Lehmann, President'(6i2-338-5584') .
