Do Minnesota's rules need a ruler?

I spent part of yesterday afternoon and evening reading the Appeals Court Decision on the PolyMet NorthMet project. In the process, I learned that I have been technically incorrect that Minnesota doesn't have areas where mining is, by regulation, prohibited. I don't know how I could have missed it. There are numerous rules sections under the heading of the Department of Natural Resources. Four appear to have to do with mining:

6125	MINERAL RESOURCES
6130	FERROUS METALLIC MINERAL MINING
6131	PEAT MINING
6132	NONFERROUS METALLIC MINERAL MINING

Under 6125, Mineral Resources, there are three major sections:

PERMITS AND LEASES FOR METALLIC MINERALS, EXCEPT
IRON ORES AND TACONITE ORES

PERMITS AND LEASES FOR SAND AND GRAVEL 

LEASES OF STATE LANDS
FOR SELECTED INDUSTRIAL MINERALS

There's no metallic mineral mining exclusion that we could find in these sections.

The PolyMet NorthMet project doesn't involve ferrous metallic mineral or peat mining so we shouldn't have to look there. That leaves 6132 Nonferrous metallic mineral mining. It has four general sections:

GENERAL PROVISIONS

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

RECLAMATION STANDARDS

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Logic might suggest one would expect to find areas from which mining is excluded under either General Provisions or Permit Requirements. Don't bother looking there. The pertinent sections are located as part of Reclamation Standards. (Because, of course, reclamation wouldn't be necessary in areas where mining is excluded?) Here's the relevant listing:

6132.2000 SITING. 

Subpart 1. Goals.     Mining shall be conducted on sites that minimize adverse impacts on natural resources and the public. Separations shall be maintained between mining areas and adjacent conflicting land uses. All sites shall incorporate setbacks or separations that are needed to comply with air, water, and noise pollution standards; local land use regulations; and requirements of other appropriate authorities.
§
Subp. 2. Mining excluded.     Except as allowed under state and federal laws, no mining shall be conducted within the following:
A. the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, as legally described in the Federal Register, volume 45, number 67 (April 4, 1980), with state restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 84.523, subdivision 3;
B. Voyageurs National Park, with state restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 84B.03, subdivision 1;
C. state wilderness areas, with restrictions specified in Minnesota Statutes, section 86A.05, subdivision 6;
D. Agassiz and Tamarac National Wilderness areas, and Pipestone and Grand Portage National monuments;
E. state scientific and natural areas;
F. within state peatland scientific and natural areas where such activities would significantly modify or alter the peatland water levels or flows, peatland water chemistry, plant or animal species or communities, or natural features of the peatland scientific and natural areas, except in the event of a national emergency declared by Congress;
G. calcareous fens identified in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.223; and
H. a state park, except if the park has been established as a result of its association with mining.

would you locate a mine and tailings basin upstream?

Photo by J. Harrington

There's also a prohibition on mining that disturbs the surface within a quarter mile of many of the preceding areas and

within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Mineral Management Corridor, identified on the Department of Natural Resources map entitled "Minnesota Department of Natural Resources B.W.C.A.W. Mineral Management Corridor," dated February 1991, which map is hereby incorporated by reference, is not subject to frequent change, and is available through the State Law Library;

We found nothing that acknowledges that mining rarely, if ever, occurs without water resources. Presumably, water quality impacts would never leave the site? Or, it's not DNR's worry, that headache belongs to the Pollution Control Agency? In any case, we believe that the approach, logic, and structure used by the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance makes lots more sense than the fragmented structure Minnesota has cobbled together.

School

By Daniel J. Langton

I was sent home the first day

with a note: Danny needs a ruler.

My father nodded, nothing seemed so apt.

School is for rules, countries need rulers,

graphs need graphing, the world is straight ahead.

It had metrics one side, inches the other.

You could see where it started

and why it stopped, a foot along,

how it ruled the flighty pen,

which petered out sideways when you dreamt.

I could have learned a lot,

understood latitude, or the border with Canada,

so stern compared to the South

and its unruly river with two names.

But that first day, meandering home, I dropped it.

********************************************
Thanks for visiting. Come again when you can.
Please be kind to each other while you can.