PolyMet Decision: The Flambeau Factor€¦ · 2015-12-17 · In terms of my credentials to speak...

PolyMet Decision:

The Flambeau Factor

Laura Gauger Duluth, MN 55805 November 2015

Introductory comments: Mine proponents in Minnesota have drawn heavily on the example of Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine in efforts to convince the public, state and federal

lawmakers, county officials and department regulators that copper-nickel mining can be done in Minnesota “without polluting local waters.” a

Even if the assertion that the Flambeau Mine operated “without polluting local waters” were true, which it is not,b comparing the PolyMet proposal to

the Flambeau Mine is like comparing apples and oranges. The information provided in this report draws the contrast between the Flambeau and PolyMet projects, allowing you to make up your own mind as to whether or not it is appropriate to compare the two when trying to determine if the State of Minnesota should move forward with the PolyMet proposal. All facts and figures that appear on the following pages are fully referenced, so you can confirm the information, if you so wish, by going to the original source. Copies of those same references are provided on a DVD that accompanies this report (inside back cover).

In terms of my credentials to speak on this matter, a resumeʹ is attached.c

Laura Gauger Duluth, MN 55805 November 2015

a Please see Appendix A for a copy of a letter and brochure sent by a lobbyist group, Mining Minnesota, to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, state lawmakers and the

Minnesota Congressional Delegation in late 2013.

b Upon recommendation of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), a tributary of the Flambeau River that serves as a drainageway for stormwater runoff

from the southeast corner of the Flambeau Mine site was recently added to the EPA’s Section 303(d) Clean Water Act list of “impaired waters” for copper and zinc toxicity linked to the Flambeau Mine operation –this despite non-mechanical treatment of the runoff.

1, 2 In addition, groundwater within the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit shows

ongoing contamination with metals and sulfate, as documented in environmental monitoring reports submitted by Rio Tinto (dba Flambeau Mining Company) to the Wisconsin DNR – this despite subaqueous disposal of the waste rock with lime amendment (the same disposal technique proposed for the PolyMet project). Rio Tinto itself acknowledged 38 exceedances of groundwater quality standards at Flambeau in a recent (January 2015) Environmental Monitoring Report obtained from the Wisconsin DNR through the Freedom of Information Act.

3, 4

c Please see Appendix E. 1

Comparison between Flambeau Mine and PolyMet Proposal

- A fully referenced table compiled by Laura Gauger of Duluth, MN, November 2015

Rio Tinto / Flambeau Mine

PolyMet / NorthMet Proposal

Footprint

181 acres 5, 6 (See Maps in Appendices B and D)

Breakdown: Mine Site = 177 acres Tailings Dump / Plant Site = N/A Transportation Corridor = 4 acres

NB: The 181-acre figure does NOT include 11 acres of wetlands that were classified as “indirectly impacted” in the Flambeau EIS.

7,649 acres (42 times bigger than Flambeau Mine)

(See Maps in Appendix F)

Breakdown: Mine Site = 3,015 acres 39

Tailings Dump / Plant Site = 4,514 acres

40

Transportation & Utility Corridor = 120 acres 41

NB: The 7,649-acre figure does NOT include the vast majority of the estimated 6,569 – 7,694

acres of wetlands classified as “indirectly impacted” in the NorthMet FEIS.42

Open Pit

Number

1 pit

3 pits

Size

32 acres 5 (2600 ft long x 550 ft wide)

Total of 528 acres 43 (16 times bigger than Flambeau Mine)

West Pit = 321 acres Central Pit = 52 acres East Pit = 155 acres

Maximum Depth

225 feet 5

Variable, depending on pit: 44

West Pit = 630 feet (2.8 times deeper than Flambeau Mine) Central Pit = 356 feet (1.6 times deeper than Flambeau Mine) East Pit = 696 feet (3.1 times deeper than Flambeau Mine)

Wetlands Directly Impacted Permanent loss due to filling or excavation of wetlands

8 acres 7

913 acres 45 (114 times more than Flambeau)

Mine Site: 758 acres (59 wetlands – 99% rated “high quality”) Tailings Dump / Plant Site: 148 acres (44 wetlands – 94% rated “low quality”) * Transportation & Utility Corridor: 7 acres (25 wetlands – 100% rated “high quality”)

* Low quality rating is due to seepage from existing LTV Tailings Dump

Wetlands Indirectly Impacted Actual or potential impacts from groundwater drawdown, changes in water quality or other factors

11 acres 7

6,569 – 7,694 acres 42 (600 – 700 times more than Flambeau)

NB: The FEIS does not specify wetland quality ratings (high v. moderate v. low) for the up to 7,694 acres of wetlands located within and around the NorthMet project area that either will or could be indirectly (but still significantly) impacted by the project – even though ratings were indicated for directly impacted wetlands (see above).

Duration of Mechanical Water Treatment

About 5 years

The Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) at Flambeau operated from about 1993 to 1998. It was decommissioned in 1998 (after pit backfill operations were complete).

Minimum 200 years at Mine Site & Minimum 500 years at Tailings Dump / Plant Site

“Water quality modeling performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed indefinitely at the Mine Site and Plant Site … a minimum 200

years at the Mine Site and a minimum of 500 years at the Plant Site.” 46, 47, 76

Tailings Generated On-Site (waste products from milling and concentrating the ore)

0 The Flambeau Deposit was rich enough to make it

economically feasible for the company to ship the ore by rail to Canada for concentrating and smelting, so that is where the tailings were generated and disposed.

8, 9

225 million tons over 20-year life of mine (11.27 million tons per year)

48

2



Residues or Slag Generated On-Site (waste products from metal extractive processes such as hydrometallurgy or smelting)

0 The Flambeau Deposit was rich enough to make it

economically feasible for the company to ship the ore by rail to Canada for concentrating and smelting, so that is where the slag was generated and disposed.

8, 9

6.2 million tons over 20-year life of mine (313,000 tons of hydromet residues per year)

49

Origin and Disposition of Tailings/Residues

(from processing ore)

As reported by USGS, “Direct smelting ore and gossan were processed at Noranda’s Horne smelter in Rouyn, Quebec, and the copper milling ore was sent to Falconbridge’s facilities in Timmins, Ontario.”

9 The USGS report did not elaborate on

relative volumes of waste produced at the two Canadian plants or where the waste was disposed.

Source

Annual Production

20-year Projection

Disposal Basin Footprint

Sulfur/Sulfate Content

Flotation Tailings

11.27 million tons 48

226 million tons (calculation by LG)

1,325 acres 50

≤ 0.12% Sulfur 52

Hydromet Residue

313,000 tons 49

6.2 million tons 49

90 acres 51

≤ 0.73% Sulfate

53, 54, 55, 56

Mine Site Footprint

177 acres 6, 7, 37

This included, among other things, a 32-acre open pit, 2 waste rock stockpiles, a waste water treatment facility (WWTF) and 8 acres of directly-impacted wetlands (permanently lost).

3,014 acres 39, 43, 141 (17 times bigger than Flambeau Mine)

This includes, among other things, 3 open pits that total 528 acres, 3 waste rock stockpiles, a waste water treatment facility (WWTF) and 128 acres of land considered to be already disturbed. The Mine Site also includes 87 wetlands that cover 1,298 acres (including 758 acres that will be permanently lost). The majority of the existing wetlands at the Mine Site (92%) are rated “high quality.”

Tailings Dump / Plant Site Footprint

0 acres

The Flambeau Deposit was rich enough to make it economically feasible for the company to ship the ore by rail to facilities in Canada for concentrating and smelting. As a result, no processing plant was built at Flambeau, and there are no tailings or residue basins at the

site. 8, 9

The only plant facility that existed at Flambeau was a 30-inch x 42-inch jaw crusher (to crush ore to less than 12 inches in diameter). The

crusher was located within the 177-acre Mine Site Footprint.132

4,515 acres 40 (located at the site of the former LTV tailings dump and processing plant)

About 2,750 acres of land within the Tailings Dump / Plant Site is already disturbed. 138

Existing LTV plant facilities that would be refurbished and/or expanded include:97

Coarse and fine crusher buildings

Concentrator building, ancillary buildings, shops and infrastructure

Tailings dump (PolyMet flotation tailings to be placed on top of existing LTV tailings);

Footprint = 1,325 acres 50

New facilities include: 97

Concentrate dewatering, storage and loadout buildings

Flotation building, Hydrometallurgical plant & Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)

Hydrometallurgical residue dump (PolyMet hydromet residue dump to be located on top

of existing LTV emergency tailings dump); Footprint = 90 acres 51

The NorthMet Tailings Dump / Plant Site includes 52 wetlands that cover 275 acres (including 148 acres that will be permanently lost). The majority of these wetlands have been previously

affected by LTV tailings deposition/plant operations and are rated “low quality.” 139

Transportation and Utility Corridor Footprint

4 acres 6 A 0.8-mile rail spur was constructed east of the mine site to connect with the Wisconsin Central Ltd Railroad (for shipment of ore to

Canada for processing) 38

120 acres 41, 140 (30 times bigger than Flambeau Mine)

This corridor connects the Mine Site with the Plant Site (the two are about 8 miles apart). It includes, among other things, 25 wetlands that cover 7.2 acres, all of which are rated “high quality” and all of which will be directly impacted (permanently destroyed). The corridor also includes 94 acres of land considered already disturbed.

The NorthMet plan calls for: 98

upgrading an existing 7-mile segment of private road

refurbishing an 8-mile portion of private railroad

constructing a new rail spur (< 1 mile in length)

constructing a new rail connection track (just over 1 mile in length)

3



Public Lands Transferred to Mining Company Control

0 acres The Flambeau Mine was located on private

property purchased by Rio Tinto in the Town of Grant in Rusk County, Wisconsin. The company bought up 2,750 acres of land in the township, including woodlands and eleven dairy farms. The project footprint itself was 181 acres.

167

6,650 acres (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 3.2-1) The ore body that PolyMet wants to mine is located on public land in the Superior

National Forest.168 The proposed “Mine Site,” where the company plans to dig 3 open

pits and store waste rock from the operation in perpetuity, covers 3,014 acres (see details on previous page). PolyMet is seeking to obtain not only this federal land, but a buffer zone around it that would bring the grand total of public lands transferred to its

control to 6,650 acres. 169

As described in the FEIS, “The federal lands proposed to transfer to PolyMet include a large black spruce, tamarack and cedar wetland, and also contain Mud Lake. Yelp Creek

and the Partridge River also flow through the property.” 169

These public lands can only be transferred to PolyMet’s control if the U.S. Forest Service and/or Congress agrees.

Size of Groundwater Sacrifice Zone This is the zone where no groundwater quality standards are enforced by the state. The groundwater sacrifice zone is encircled by a state agency-established “compliance boundary” that marks where groundwater quality standards must be met.

Estimated 535 acres Chapter NR 182 of the

Wisconsin Administrative Code regulates metallic mining wastes. In particular, Section NR 182.075 allows unlimited groundwater contamination within a zone extending up to 1200 feet out from the perimeter of the mine and any associated waste facilities.

27

For Flambeau, the compliance boundary encircled an area of about 535 acres – nearly a square mile (as opposed to the company’s property boundary, which encircled 2,750 acres – see above entry). See Appendix B for a diagram showing the Flambeau compliance boundary and graphs from wells within the compliance boundary that are not subject to any groundwater or drinking water quality standards.

Estimated 20,000 acres (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 3.2-1)

The FEIS states the following with regard to the PolyMet compliance boundary:

● “Water quality modeling performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed at the Mine Site and Plant Site indefinitely. The water objective of closure is to provide water treatment for as long as necessary to meet regulatory standards at

applicable groundwater and surface water compliance points.” 170

● “Groundwater evaluation criteria apply to groundwater at the project property boundary.” 171

● “The groundwater quality criteria used in the Final EIS are intended to be used to assess for impacts to groundwater at the Mine Site and Plant Site property boundaries, not within the

NorthMet project footprint.” 172

● FEIS figures “show the groundwater evaluation locations (property boundary) used to

assess compliance with evaluation criteria.” 173

As confirmed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), it’s not until polluted water from the mine operation crosses the company’s property boundary that ground-water quality standards can be enforced – even though, according to computer modeling in the FEIS, the levels of pollutants in the water within the PolyMet property boundary will be much higher than standards set to protect people, plants and wildlife.148, 174

In Minnesota, apparently at the discretion of MPCA, the following enforcement strategy applies: Property Boundary = Compliance Boundary

This is very different from the Wisconsin model, where groundwater quality standards must be met at a certain distance from where the waste is stored.

The PolyMet property/compliance boundary, as shown on maps in the FEIS,168 encompasses an estimated 20,000 acres of water-rich lands in the Lake Superior watershed where no groundwater quality standards will be enforced by MPCA, including 6,650 acres of lands currently under federal control (public lands)– see above.

Computer modeling in the FEIS predicts that the levels of contaminants such as arsenic, antimony, copper and nickel in the groundwater at the PolyMet Mine Site and Tailings Dump “would be reduced when the peak arrives at the property boundary due to attenuation processes” 175 and that enforcement standards would be met at the applicable compliance points (the boundary surrounding the estimated 20,000 acres of company-controlled lands and wetlands that comprise the groundwater sacrifice zone).

On that basis PolyMet has claimed it will be in compliance with state law. However:

It’s not that the water within PolyMet’s property boundary will be clean. Rather, it’s that the pollution has been legalized.

4



Waste Rock Production

Total = 8.6 million tons 13

Class

Sulfur Content

14

Amount 13, 14

Final Disposition

Type I Stockpile

Temporary & Unlined

< 1% S

4.0 million tons

Stockpile Dimensions:

Footprint = 40 acres

Height = 60 feet

Subaqueous Disposal:

Type I and Type II waste materials (including sludge from WWTF) were backfilled into the unlined mine pit. “Backfilling of the open pit began in earnest in early 1997. Waste rock and soils were replaced to their approximate original location in the open pit. Over 30,000 tons of limestone was added to the [Type II] sulfide-bearing waste rock to neutralize and buffer the groundwater as it resaturated the backfilled

materials.” 12, 17

Type II Stockpile Temporary & Lined

> 1% S

[Note: It is not clear from the Flambeau EIS how much higher than 1% the sulfur content was] 15, 16

4.6 million tons

Stockpile Dimensions:

Footprint = 27 acres

Height = 70 feet

Total = 308 Million Tons 43 (36 times more than Flambeau)

Class 59

Sulfur Content 59, 60

Amount 61

Final Disposition

Category 1 Stockpile

-Permanent &

Unlined

-Low potential to generate acid, but may leach heavy metals

%S ≤ 0.12%

168 million tons Stockpile Dimensions: Footprint = 526 acres Height = 240 feet

Permanent Stockpile:

62

The waste pile will not be lined but will be surrounded by a water containment system and covered at closure.

Category 2/3 Stockpile

-Temporary & Lined -Low to medium potential to generate acid and would leach heavy metals

Category 2: 0.12% < %S ≤ 0.31%

44 million tons

Stockpile Dimensions: Footprint = 180 acres Height = 160 feet

Subaqueous Disposal:

63, 64

All waste rock in the Category 2/3 and Category 4 stockpiles will be backfilled into the unlined east/ central pit where groundwater even-tually will resaturate the waste. All new Category 2/3/4 waste rock and some new Category 1 waste rock generated in years 11-20 will also be placed directly into the unlined east/ central pit for sub-aqueous disposal. Lime will be added to maintain pH in the pit pore water as needed

Category 3: 0.31% < %S ≤ 0.6%


-Temporary & Lined -High potential to generate acid and would leach heavy metals

Duluth Complex Component: 0.63% ≤ %S ≤ 3.0% ---- Virginia Formation Component: 0.4% ≤ %S ≤ 5.0%

6.2 million tons Stockpile Dimensions: Footprint = 57 acres Height = 80 feet

Direct Backfill

(waste rock placed directly into unlined east/central pit)

%S ≤ 5.0% All new Category . 2/3/4 & some new Category 1 waste rock generated in years 11-20

Sludge Production

(from Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) and/or Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP))

124 tons per day Amount of Waste Produced Daily and/or Over Time: The Flambeau EIS stated that up to 124 tons/day of “metal and sulfur enriched sludge” would be produced by the mine’s WWTF, along with up to 1.1 tons/day of grit. 10

Disposal of Waste: Sludge and grit from WWTF were temporarily disposed of in the mine’s high-sulfur waste rock stockpile. During reclamation this stockpile was amended with limestone and backfilled into the unlined mine pit. 10, 11, 12

???

Amount of WWTP and WWTF Waste Produced Daily and/or Over Time:

Projected waste volumes are not provided in FEIS, even though: “Mechanical water treat-ment is part of the modeled NorthMet Project … for the duration of the simulations – these are

200 years at the Mine Site and 500 years at the Plant Site, respectively.” 46, 47, 76

Disposal of WWTP Waste: For years 1-52 (perhaps only to year 35), “reject concentrate”

from WWTP at Plant Site will be transported by rail tank car to WWTF at Mine Site for treat-ment. Thereafter, reject concentrate will be evaporated at WWTP and residual solids disposed

off-site. 57

Disposal of WWTF Waste: Until the hydromet plant becomes operational (sometime be-

tween years 3-5), all sludge from WWTF will be disposed off-site. Once the hydromet plant is up and running, sludge produced by WWTF will be trucked to hydromet plant and either auto-claved to recover metals or disposed directly into hydromet residue basin.

After reclamation of

hydromet residue basin commences (~ year 21), all waste will be disposed off-site. 58

NB: The FEIS does not identify where or in which watershed the off-site disposal facilities will

be located, the transportation corridor, or if any nearby landfill could even accommodate the large waste volumes generated over hundreds of years.

5



Total Ore Production

1.9 Million Tons 5

225 Million Tons 43 (118 times more than Flambeau)

Grade of Ore

Flambeau was a small, high grade ore body characterized as a “Precambrian supergene enriched massive sulfide deposit.”

18

“Ore shipments during the four years of operation totaled 1,895,984 tons that averaged 8.9 % copper (including 400,000 tons of direct smelting ore that averaged up to 30 %

copper), 0.10 oz./ton gold, and lesser amounts of silver. Although it was a rather small orebody, the Flambeau mine was one of the highest grade orebodies ever mined.”

35

The gossan that capped the orebody contained “an unusually high gold concentration (over 1.0 oz./ton Au),” and the grains of gold were “extremely pure (> 950 fine Au).”

36

The ore at NorthMet appears to be significantly lower grade than that at Flambeau, but there’s more of it.

The deposit has been characterized as a “bulk, low-grade mineralization of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, palladium, and gold.”

92 It has also been described as

consisting of “polymetallic, disseminated, magmatic-sulfide” ore. 162

Metal Production

Metal

Total Reported Production 8

Copper

181,000 tons

Silver

3.3 million ounces

Gold

334,000 ounces

Zinc

900 tons 133

Metal

Draft EIS (October 2009)

FEIS 94 (November 2015)

Annual Production

93

20-year Projection (calculation by LG)

Annual

Production *

Copper

38,821 tons

776,420 tons

113,000 tons of copper concentrate

Nickel

9,037 tons

180,740 tons

18,000 tons of mixed (nickel/cobalt) hydroxide

Cobalt

400 tons

8,000 tons

Gold

13,824 oz.

276,480 oz.

500 tons of gold and PGE (Platinum-Group-Element) precipitate

Platinum

22,184 oz.

443,680 oz.

Palladium

87,129 oz.

1.74 million oz.

Zinc

??? 95, 96

??? 95, 96

??? 95, 96

* The production values reported in the FEIS are somewhat meaningless because

the FEIS does not indicate the concentrations of the individual metals found within the various concentrates and/or precipitates that are mentioned. Nor does the FEIS definitively state how many of the 6 metals classified as PGEs are present in marketable quantities in the NorthMet deposit.

6



Do the mine’s flotation tailings and/or hydromet residues have the potential to cause groundwater or surface water contamination?

N/A. The Flambeau Deposit was rich enough to make it

economically feasible for the company to ship the ore by rail to Canada for concentrating and smelting. As a result, there are no tailings or hydrometallurgical residue basins at the Flambeau site.8

As reported by USGS, “Direct smelting ore and gossan were processed at Noranda’s Horne smelter in Rouyn, Quebec, and the copper milling ore was sent to Falconbridge’s facilities in Timmins, Ontario.” 9 The USGS report did not elaborate on volumes of waste produced at the two Canadian plants, the composition of the tailings/residues, or where the waste was disposed.

Yes – NorthMet Flotation Tailings Dump: PolyMet has characterized the geochemistry of the NorthMet flotation tailings and

concluded that “bulk tailings will release metals.” The company has also concluded

that “bulk tailings will not generate acid.” 65

Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, copper and zinc are just a few of the metals in the

NorthMet flotation tailings for which release ratios have been calculated. 65

Labradorite (Ca0.59 Na0.61(Al, Si)4O8) will make up the bulk of the tailings. 66

Yes – NorthMet Hydromet Residue Dump: The following waste products will be placed in the hydromet residue basin: 67

- residues from the hydrometallurgy plant containing, among other things,

sulfate, aluminum, molybdenum, nickel and selenium. 68 - untreated sludge from the mine’s WWTF (see next page); and coal ash 69

During reclamation the hydromet residue basin will be dewatered and capped.

NB: Even though the reclaimed hydromet residue basin will exist in perpetuity, “It is assumed for purposes of the FEIS that the leakage from this [lined] facility into underlying groundwater

or adjacent surface water would be negligible and therefore is not further evaluated.” 69, 70

Does the mine’s waste rock have the potential to cause acid rock drainage (ARD) or metals leaching?

Yes. Flambeau was a small, high grade ore body

characterized by geologists as a “Precambrian supergene enriched massive sulfide deposit.” 18 It contained “more than 50 percent sulfide minerals, primarily pyrite (iron sulfide), with concentrations of the copper-bearing minerals chalcocite [Cu2S], bornite [Cu5FeS4] and chalcopyrite [CuFeS2]. In addition, the weathered upper portion of the deposit contained higher grades of copper & significant concentrations of gold.” 19 At the end of mine operations, the waste rock generated by the Flambeau operation was backfilled into the unlined mine pit for subaqueous disposal.12, 17 Because of the high sulfide-sulfur content, the naturally occurring buffering capacity of the rock would not have been sufficient to prevent acid rock drainage. That’s why Rio Tinto added over 30,000 tons of limestone to the materials in the mine’s Type-II (high sulfur) waste rock stockpile when backfilling the pit in 1997. 11, 12, 17 NB: Significant groundwater pollution has been documented in the groundwater within the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit, this despite the use of subaqueous disposal + limestone amendment as the disposal technique for waste rock. 20, 21, 23 See the following sections for details:

Is ARD or metals leaching occurring or expected to occur in groundwater within the backfilled pit and in groundwater moving beyond the backfilled pit?

Groundwater Quality Modeling at Mine Site

Yes. NorthMet is a relatively large, low- to medium-grade deposit. While the sulfide-sulfur

content of much of the waste at NorthMet is relatively low, there is little buffering capacity in the rock, so there is potential for both acid rock drainage and metals leaching in the long term. Specifically, the FEIS and supportive documents state the following:

“Most of the waste rock and pit wall rock would contain some sulfide S, mainly as mineral

pyrrhotite, which can produce acid leachate and soluble metals when it oxidizes.” 60

“There are essentially no acid-neutralizing carbonate minerals in NorthMet waste rock, but silicate minerals … neutralize some acid, which would delay acid onset in some rock and would prevent entirely the onset of acidic conditions in rock with less than 0.12 per-

cent sulfur.”60

“PolyMet’s waste characterization program (RS42, SRK 2007) has shown that acid rock drainage (ARD) can be expected to be generated by rock containing in excess of 0.12% or 0.31% sulfur depending on the rock’s mineralogy. However, metal leaching is not confined to acidic pHs and water quality may remain a concern for non-acidic conditions if predicted concentrations in drainage from the waste rock stockpiles exceed water quality discharge limits.” (RS30, SRK, Feb 07, p.1)

The NorthMet plan calls for backfilling the mine’s Category 2, 3 and 4 waste rock (and some Category 1 waste rock) into the east/central mine pit for subaqueous disposal between years 11 and 20. “The East pit backfill would resaturate with groundwater, in-pit runoff, direct precipitation, and treated process water from the WWTF, to limit the oxidation of the sulfide minerals in the pit walls and backfilled waste rock, and reduce the amount of metals leaching

to the pit water.” 81 In addition, “lime would be added to the waste rock during East Pit

backfilling to maintain pH in the pore water as needed.” 64

←

Indeed, the FEIS acknowledges that “pore water in the initially saturated backfill would have relatively high solute concentrations [e.g., sulfate levels are predicted to go as high as 2,500

mg/l (P50)] …” 80

and that the east pit “would continue to provide contaminant loading [to the

Partridge River] for a minimum of 200 years.” 75

NB: “It is expected that eventually the solute concentrations in the pits would stabilize to more or less steady-state values.” However, steady-state values do not necessarily mean low levels. In addition, the FEIS goes on to state that the timeframe for reaching steady-state “would likely be greater than 200 years as indicated by [modeling] which shows solute concentrations

continuing to decrease at year 200, although still above water quality standards.” 75

7

NB: The proposed NorthMet waste rock disposal technique (subaqueous disposal plus lime) has proven ineffective in controlling metals leaching at Flambeau.



Do waste products produced by the mine’s WWTF and/or WWTP have the potential to cause groundwater or surface water contamination? NB: Different categories of waste are produced, depen-ding on the water treatment process:

“Sludge” from Chemical Precipitation + Filtration

“Reject Concentrate” from Reverse Osmosis

“Residual solids” from Reverse Osmosis + Evaporation

Yes. The waste water treatment process at Flambeau

consisted solely of Chemical Precipitation + Filtration. As described in the Flambeau EIS, the resultant sludge was “metal and sulfur enriched.”

10

The waste water treatment facility at Flambeau operated for a total of about 5 years, producing up to 124 tons of sludge per day.

10 The sludge was temporarily disposed of in the mine’s

high-sulfur waste rock stockpile. During reclamation this stockpile was amended with limestone and backfilled into the unlined mine pit.

10, 11, 12

Not addressed in FEIS.

The FEIS states, “Water quality modeling performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed indefinitely at the Mine Site and Plant Site … a minimum 200 years at the Mine Site and a minimum of 500 years at the Plant Site.” 46,

47, 76

It also states that all waste generated by the WWTF (Mine Site) will be disposed off-site starting at about year 21, and that all waste generated by the WWTP (Plant Site) will be disposed off-site starting at about year 52 (perhaps sooner). Wastes to be disposed off-site include both sludge (from Chemical Precipitation + Filtration process at WWTF) and residual solids (from RO + Evaporation at both the WWTP and WWTF).90

NB: Neither the FEIS nor NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package 72

discloses the volume of sludge and residual solids that will be produced by the WWTF and WWTP. Nor do they identify where or in which watershed the off-site disposal facil-ities will be located, what transportation corridor would be utilized, or if any nearby landfill could even accommodate the large volumes of waste generated over hundreds of years.

NB: In terms of the composition of the waste, no information is provided in the NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package, 72 and only limited information regarding the sludge is included in the FEIS: “The Mine Site WWTF solids would be similar to the hydrometallurgical residue, consisting primarily of gypsum, metal hydroxides and calcite.” 55 Neither the FEIS nor Waste Characterization Data Package discusses the composition of the residual solids.

Instead, the FEIS mainly focuses on identifying the categories of waste that will be produced by the WWTF and WWTP and how the wastes will be processed:

Reject Concentrate: The WWTP at the Plant Site will generate “reject concentrate” from a Reverse Osmosis (RO) process during years 1-52 and then switch to an RO + Evaporation process that will generate “residual solids” (see below discussion of residual solids). The switch in treatment processes may occur as early as year 35. Any reject concentrate produced before the plant converts to the RO + Evaporation process will be transported by rail tank car to the WWTF at the Mine Site for treatment (Chemical Precipitation + Filtration) which will, in turn, generate sludge.57

Sludge: The WWTF at the Mine Site will generate metal-containing sludge from a

variety of waste streams using a Chemical Precipitation + Filtration process (see below section entitled “Mechanical and Non-Mechanical Treatment of Surface Water and/or Groundwater ”). The expected metal content of the sludge is high enough that the NorthMet plan calls for processing WWTF sludge in the mine’s hydromet plant to recover the metals.71 Specifically, the plan calls for the following: Until the hydromet plant becomes operational (sometime between years 3-5), all sludge from the WWTF will be disposed off-site. Once the hydromet plant is up and running, sludge produced by the WWTF will be trucked to the hydromet plant and either autoclaved to recover metals or disposed directly into the hydromet residue basin. 71 After reclamation of the hydromet residue basin commences (~ year 21), all WWTF waste (including “residual solids” from an RO + Evaporation process slated to begin at the WWTF sometime around year 52 – perhaps sooner) will be disposed off-site.58

Residual Solids: Commencing sometime around year 52 (perhaps sooner), the NorthMet plan calls for both the WWTF and WWTP to convert to an RO + Evaporation process for treating water in the long term.74 The resultant waste, referred to as “residual solids,” will be disposed off-site.

8



Is ARD or metals leaching occurring or expected to occur in groundwater within the backfilled pit and in groundwater moving beyond the backfilled pit?

Yes. Metals (mainly manganese and iron) are leaching

from the backfilled waste material into groundwater at the Flambeau site, this despite subaqueous disposal of the waste with limestone amendment.

20, 21, 22, 23 According to Rio Tinto

consultant Foth, the contaminated water is flowing directly into the bed of the Flambeau River.

85

See below section entitled “Groundwater Quality Modeling at Mine Site” for details related to the following predictions made by Foth’s groundwater model:

Foth predicted that manganese levels in the backfilled pit would top off at about 550 µg/l, but levels as high as 42,000 µg/l have been recorded, to date.

Foth predicted that iron levels in the backfilled pit would top off at about 320 µg/l, but levels up to 15,000 µg/l have been recorded, to date.

Foth predicted that copper levels in the backfilled pit would be about 14 µg/l (no increase over baseline), but levels up to 810 µg/l have been recorded, to date.

Sulfate levels in a well within the backfilled pit have gone as high as 2,400 mg/l, as compared to a baseline of 5-10 mg/l.

In a recent (Jan 2015) monitoring report, Rio Tinto acknowledged 38 exceedances of water quality standards in the groundwater at Flambeau, including metals and sulfate. Wells inside the backfilled pit and wells between the pit and Flambeau River have been impacted.

3 ,4

In terms of the scale and size of the contamination locus, the Flambeau waste rock and sludge is contained in a pit that is about 32 acres in size and reaches a maximum depth of 225 feet.

5 Total waste volume disposed in the pit was about 8.6

million tons.13

Yes. PolyMet proposes to use subaqueous disposal of the high-sulfur (Category

2, 3 and 4) waste rock generated by the NorthMet mining operation,63

a method of waste disposal that has proven ineffective in controlling metals leaching at Flambeau. Waste materials will be backfilled into the east/central mine pit, and “lime would be added to the waste rock during East Pit backfilling to maintain pH in the pore water as needed.”

64 This technique (limestone amendment) was also employed at

Flambeau in efforts to neutralize and buffer groundwater as it resaturated the backfill.

12, 17 Another similarity to Flambeau is that there are no plans to line the

mine pit before backfilling operations commence.

Based off of experience gained at Flambeau with regard to groundwater contam-ination within the backfilled pit, one might expect similar problems at NorthMet.

Indeed, the FEIS states that “pore water in the initially saturated backfill would have relatively high solute concentrations [e.g., sulfate levels are modeled to go as high as 2,500 mg/l (P50)] …”

80 and characterizes the east pit as a “permanent feature

that would continue to provide contaminant loading [to the Partridge River] for a minimum of 200 years.”

75 (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 5.2.2-7)

“It is expected that eventually the solute concentrations in the pits would stabilize to more or less steady-state values.” However, steady-state values do not necessarily mean low levels. In addition, the FEIS goes on to state that the timeframe for reaching steady-state “would likely be greater than 200 years as indicated by [modeling] which shows solute concentrations continuing to decrease at year 200, although still above water quality standards.”

75

In terms of the scale and size of the contamination locus, the backfilled east/central NorthMet pit would be about 210 acres in size and reach a maximum depth of about

700 feet.43

Total waste volume disposed in the pit will be roughly 140 million tons*

(16 times more than Flambeau).

________________ *308 million tons – 168 million tons = 140 million tons

(Total Waste Rock) (Category 1 permanent stockpile) (Amount of backfill)

See A

pp

en

dix

-B f

or

Gra

ph

s

See Appendix-C for Jan 2015 company report

9



Are Contaminants Reaching or Expected to Reach Public Waters?

Yes. We are seeing significant surface water contamination

(mainly copper) of a small tributary of the Flambeau River that serves as a drainageway for stormwater runoff from the mine site.

20, 21, 24 The problem is occurring despite the employment

of non-mechanical water treatment methods (biofilters and infiltration basins) to treat the runoff.

In 2010 the Wisconsin DNR initiated a study to assess the health of the tributary (known as Stream-C; classified as navigable)

159 and later issued a report in which they

concluded, “Water quality monitoring done at the site between 2002 and 2011 showed that Stream C and its contributing drainageways contained copper and zinc concentrations that frequently exceeded acute toxicity criteria (ATC). On average, copper exceeded ATC’s in 92% of samples, and zinc exceeded ATC’s in 46% of samples.”

24

Upon recommendation of the Wisconsin DNR, Stream C was added to the EPA’s Section 303(d) Clean Water Act list of “impaired waters,” effective April 2012, for copper and zinc toxicity linked to the Flambeau Mine operation.

1, 2

Yes. The Co-Lead and Cooperating Agencies participating in the NorthMet EIS

process have identified several different pathways for contaminant flow to public waters:

● Southward Flow: 114

(See Maps in Appendix F – Figures 5.2.2-7 and 5.2.2-9)

Partridge River watershed → St. Louis River → Lake Superior o Flow paths for contaminants to the Partridge River have been

mapped.163

For example, the FEIS states that the backfilled east mine pit “would continue to provide contaminant loading [to the Partridge River] for a minimum of 200 years.”

75

o PolyMet’s long-term closure plan also calls for treating the water in the 321-acre lake that will form in the west mine pit after mining ceases “for as long as necessary.”

142

Embarrass River watershed → St. Louis River → Lake Superior o Flow paths for contaminants to the Embarrass River have been

mapped.164

For example, the FEIS states that, while PolyMet predicts the containment system it plans to install around the tailings dump at the Plant Site will capture about 90% of the groundwater seepage, “Tailings seepage bypassing the containment system (approximately 20 gallons per minute) would continue to enter the northern, northwestern, and western surficial flowpaths, and migrate slowly toward the Embarrass River.”

165

NB: The flowpath map for the Plant Site 164

fails to show the southern

flowpath to Second Creek, even though the FEIS states that “groundwater in some portions of the [existing LTV] Tailings Basin flows to the south to form the headwaters of Second Creek”

134 and that the creek “could be

notably affected by the NorthMet Project.” 116

● Northward Flow toward existing Peter-Mitchell taconite mine pits:126

Birch Lake / Kawishiwi River watershed → Rainy River o “Detailed (MODFLOW) and simplistic (MathCad) models predict

that a northward contaminant flowpath is probable under likely closure conditions [at NorthMet]”

because of a “strong bedrock

gradient” toward the existing Northshore Peter-Mitchell taconite mine pits.

126, 127

o As described in a news report, “The [Peter-Mitchell] pits, which sit about a mile north of the proposed PolyMet mine, currently discharge in several directions. Upon closure, however, all of the discharge is slated to enter Birch Lake, part of the Kawishiwi River, a major BWCAW [Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness] watershed.”

129

See below section entitled “Affected Watersheds” for more details on contaminant flow to public waters.

See Appendix D for graph.

10



Groundwater Quality Modeling at Mine Site

Background levels of constituents selected for groundwater modeling at Flambeau Mine site

vs. Predicted levels in pore water within backfilled pit

(Modeled by Rio Tinto consultant: Foth) vs.

Maximum reported levels in pore water within backfilled pit, to date

Parameter Mean Base-line Level 22, 25

Foth Prediction for Level in Pore Water

within Backfilled Pit 26

Max Reported Level in Pore Water within Backfilled Pit, to

date 21, 23

Level Duration (Years)

Copper (µg/l)

13

14

>4,000

810 58 times higher than Foth predicted

Iron (µg/l)

220

320

>4,000

15,000 47 times higher than Foth predicted

Manganese

(µg/l)

350

550

3,920

42,000 76 times higher than Foth predicted

Sulfate (mg/l)

9.9

1,360

0-8

2,400 1.8 times higher than Foth predicted

1,100

8-132

832

132-2,850

Background levels of select constituents in groundwater at NorthMet Mine site (Bedrock)

vs. Predicted post-mining levels in East Pit lower backfill pore water

(Modeled by PolyMet consultant: Barr Engineering) vs.

Maximum reported levels in East Pit lower backfill pore water

Parameter

Ground-water Standard (MCL)

146

Mean Baseline Level (total)

78, 111

Barr Prediction for Average P90 Level

in East Pit Lower Backfill Pore Water148

Actual Max Level in Lower Backfill Water

Mine Year

11 a

41 b

75 c

200 112

Alkalinity (mg/l)

- 66 45 45 45 ? TBD

Antimony(µg/l)

6 0.6 91 90 90 ? TBD

Arsenic (µg/l)

10 2 100 100 100 ? TBD

Cadmium (µg/l)

5 1 44 35 35 ? TBD

Cobalt (µg/l)

40 147

2 2,790 794 753 ? TBD

Copper (µg/l)

1,000 7 12,800 12,800 12,800 ? TBD

Iron (µg/l)

300 7,161 209 209 209 ? TBD

Manganese (µg/l)

50 112 3,710 2,030 2,030 ? TBD

Nickel (µg/l)

100 147

44 72,900 4,850 4,790 ? TBD

Selenium (µg/l)

50 1 158 12 10 ? TBD

Sulfate (mg/l)

250 14 3,820 264 259 ? TBD

TDS (mg/l)

500 126 NR NR NR ? TBD

Zinc (µg/l)

5,000 17 1,960 1,960 1,960 ? TBD

NR = Not reported; TBD = To Be Determined

a. Backfilling starts in East pit during Year 11. Values shown are averages for 2nd half of year.

b. Values reflect plans to pump/treat East Pit pore water during mine years 21-40.82

c. Barr predicts that concentrations in lower backfill pore water will be “typically stable or

trending downward” in long-term closure following end of pumping/treatment of pore water.148

As the data indicates, however, stable levels do not necessarily mean low levels. NB: This table is specific to groundwater quality at lower elevations of the Mine Site. Other contaminant sources besides East Pit lower backfill exist at the site (e.g., East Pit upper

backfill), resulting in water treatment being needed “indefinitely” (minimum 200 years). 47, 76

See Appendix-B for graphs.

11

Groundwater Quality Modeling at Plant Site


N/A – There was no “Plant Site” at Flambeau.

The Flambeau Deposit was rich enough to make it economically feasible for the company to ship the ore by rail to Canada for concentrating and smelting. As a result, no plant facilities or associated tailings dumps were constructed.

8, 9


Natural background concentrations of select constituents in groundwater (GW) at NorthMet Plant site vs.

Groundwater quality impacts from existing LTV tailings dump vs.

Projected groundwater quality impacts from combined LTV / NorthMet tailings dump (Modeled by PolyMet consultant: Barr Engineering)

Parameter

GW Std 146, 147,

156

Surface Water

Std a

Water Quality Std for Fish Culture 155

Natural Back-ground Level (mean)

b

Existing GW Quality at N, NW and W Toes of LTV Tailings Dump (mean)

c

Projected Maximum Average Concentration (P90) in Water at Toes of Combined LTV / NorthMet Tailings Dump

(Mine Years 5-100) d

Actual Measured Levels at Toes of Combined Tailings Dump

East Toe

South Toe

West Toe

NW Toe

North Toe

Alkalinity (mg/l) (e) - -

10 – 100

51

421 277* 204* 268* 271* 245* TBD

Antimony (µg/l) 6 31 - < 0.5 < 0.5 15 25 4 3 19 TBD Arsenic (µg/l) 10 53 < 50 1 2 46 99 14 8 56* TBD Boron (µg/l) 1,000 500 - 29 319 565* 332* 545* 551* 299* TBD Cadmium (µg/l) 4 1 (f) 0.5 (g) - 5 (h)

0.2 0.2 3 5 0.9 0.6 4 TBD Cobalt (µg/l) 40 5 - 4 2 47 110 14 10 65 TBD Copper (µg/l) 1,000 9 (f) 6 (g) - 30 (h)

16 8 670 695 151 111 654 TBD Iron (µg/l) 300 - < 100 5,862 4,709 1,130* 4,690* 7,450* 6,760* 3,890* TBD Lead ((µg/l) 15 3 (f) < 20 3 0.9 64 100 13 6 61 TBD

Manganese (µg/l)

50 - < 10 271 1,299 1,490* 1,190* 1,450* 1,470* 967* TBD Mercury (ng/l) 2,000 1.3 - 4 5 NR NR NR NR NR TBD Nickel (µg/l) 100 52 (f) < 100 16 7 655 1,380 167 103 893 TBD Sulfate (mg/l) 250 10 < 50 8 234 333 592 488* 442* 424 TBD TDS (mg/l) 500 - < 400 51 799 NR NR NR NR NR TBD Zinc (µg/l) 2,000 106 (f) < 5 20 9 204 317 60 37 257 TBD

NR = Not Reported ; TBD = To Be Determined; * = Upward trend noted at Year 100, but no modeling provided by Barr beyond Year 100.157

a. Most conservative standard reported for indicated parameter in: NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11, PolyMet, March 2015,

Large Table 1.158

b. Mean reported values from GW-002, GW-011, GW-013 and GW-015 (NorthMet FEIS, Table 4.2.2-22 and Figure 4.2.2-14, June 2015); The NorthMet FEIS

states that these wells “best approximate groundwater quality unaffected by the LTVSMC tailings.” 113

Raw data can be found in: NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package,

Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11, PolyMet, March 2015, Large Table 3. 79

c. Mean reported values from GW-001, GW-006, GW-007, GW-008 and GW-012 (NorthMet FEIS, Table 4.2.2-23 and Figure 4.2.2-14, June 2015); These wells are located along the western, northwestern and northern toes of the existing LTV tailings dump. No monitoring wells are located along the eastern or southern toes. d. Source of raw data reviewed by LG: NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11,

PolyMet, March 2015, Large Tables 10-14.157

e. As CaCO3; f. For hardness = 100 mg/l ; g. For alkalinity < 100 mg/l ; h. For alkalinity >100 mg/l

NB: “Water quality modeling performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed at the Mine Site and Plant Site indefinitely [minimum 200 years at the Mine Site and a minimum of 500 years at the Plant Site] 47 … Both mechanical and non-mechanical treatment would require periodic maintenance and monitoring activities for as long as treatment is required (indefinitely).” 76

NB: Impacts from Hydromet Residue Basin: During reclamation the lined hydromet residue basin at the Plant Site will be dewatered and capped. This basin will contain various byproducts of the NorthMet operation and exist in perpetuity, but the FEIS does not supply modeling data for potential groundwater impacts, instead stating, “… it is assumed for purposes of the FEIS that the leakage from this [lined] facility into underlying groundwater or adjacent surface water would be negligible and therefore is not further evaluated.” 69, 70

12



Mechanical Treatment of Contaminated Groundwater within backfilled pit

None. Rio Tinto used subaqueous disposal of the waste rock

and sludge generated by the Flambeau operation. The waste was backfilled into the 32-acre unlined mine pit. “Over 30,000 tons of limestone was added to the [Type II] sulfide-bearing waste rock to neutralize and buffer the groundwater as it resaturated the backfilled materials.” 12, 17 Still, significant groundwater pollution has been documented in the groundwater within the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit, 20, 21, 23 and, according to company modeling, the water is moving directly into the bed of the Flambeau River.106

The groundwater within the backfilled pit, however, is not being pumped and treated.

Groundwater pollution at mine sites in Wisconsin was legalized in the early 1980s, when the state’s mining regulations were written (see Chapter NR 182, Wisconsin Administrative Code and, in particular, section NR 182.075 that allows unlimited groundwater contamination at mine sites within a zone extending up to 1200 feet out from the edge of the mine’s waste disposal facility). 27 That is why the pollution at Flambeau is going unchecked and mine proponents technically have been able to claim that the Flambeau Mine has not violated Wisconsin’s groundwater protection law:

It’s not that the water within the backfilled Flambeau Mine pit is clean. It’s that the pollution has been legalized.

Unclear. PolyMet proposes to employ subaqueous disposal of the Category 2, 3 and 4

waste rock generated by the mine operation,63

a method of waste disposal proven ineffective in controlling metals leaching at Flambeau. See above sections entitled:

“Does the mine’s waste rock have the potential to cause acid rock drainage (ARD) or metals leaching?”

“Is ARD or metals leaching occurring or expected to occur in groundwater within the backfilled pit and in groundwater moving beyond the backfilled pit?”

The FEIS states that “pore water in the initially saturated backfill would have relatively high

solute concentrations [e.g., sulfate levels are modeled to go as high as 2,500 mg/l (P50)] …” 80

and that the east pit “would continue to provide contaminant loading [to the Partridge River] for a minimum of 200 years.”

75

The section of the FEIS entitled “NorthMet Project Detailed Description,” includes no plans for

installing a groundwater capture system around the 207-acre unlined east/central pit 161

(unlike plans clearly outlined in the FEIS for installing capture systems around the 526-acre Category

1 waste rock stockpile and a portion of the 1,325-acre tailings dump).

77, 84 Still, the FEIS

states: “During reclamation (year 21-40), ‘water from the East Pit would … be pumped to the WWTF and treated ...’ after which treatment of water in East Pit Backfill may continue into

closure and long-term maintenance (Section 2.1.1 of PolyMet 2015d).” 82

NB: Since the NorthMet plan does not include provisions for installing a groundwater capture system around the unlined mine pit, it is unclear from the limited information in the FEIS how the contaminated pore water will be captured so that it can be treated. Nor is there any indication of how efficient the employed system might be in capturing pore water from a mine feature as large as the unlined pit (207 acres in size, extending up to 700 feet beneath the surface and containing roughly 140 million tons of waste rock).

Mechanical and Non-Mechanical Treatment of Surface Water and/or Groundwater

Waste Water Treatment Facility (Mechanical Treatment).

A waste water treatment facility (WWTF) was built to treat contaminated water from the open pit, high sulfur (Type-II) waste rock stockpile, crushed ore storage area, haul road and maintenance yard during the mining years. It utilized a chemical precipitation and filtration process. The treated water was discharged to the Flambeau River, and the “metal and sulfur enriched sludge” from the WWTF was transported to the Type-II waste rock stockpile for temporary storage. 28 During backfill operations the Type-II materials were amended with limestone and buried in the unlined pit.12 The WWTF was decommissioned in 1998, after backfill operations were complete. It operated for roughly 5 years.

Settling Ponds (Non-Mechanical Treatment).

During the mining years, runoff from the low sulfur (Type-I) waste rock stockpile was not treated in the WWTF. Rather, it was collected at the base of the pile, directed to two settling ponds located at the southwest end of the stockpile, and eventually discharged to either the Flambeau River or an adjacent wetland. 28 The two settling ponds were filled during site reclamation.

(continued on next page)

Projected Duration of Water Treatment: “Water quality modeling

performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed at the Mine Site and Plant Site indefinitely [minimum 200 years at the Mine Site and a minimum

of 500 years at the Plant Site] 47 … The NorthMet Project Proposed Action includes long-term mechanical treatment (Reverse Osmosis or equivalently performing technology) at both the Mine Site and Plant Site with a goal of transitioning to a non-mechanical water treatment technology requiring less maintenance over the long term. Both mechanical and non-mechanical treatment would require periodic maintenance and monitoring activities for as long

as treatment is required (indefinitely).” 76

NB: Questions have been raised regarding PolyMet’s goal of eventually transitioning from mechanical to non-mechanical water treatment. As stated in comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Section of Fisheries): “The overview of the transitional approach from mechanical to non-mechanical treatment technologies as presented is highly speculative, particularly in terms of success in development of and timing of installation of a

successful system.” 160

Another consideration, raised by others, is that non-mechanical water treatment methods have proven ineffective at Flambeau (See Flambeau section, next page).

Plant Site. 88 A mechanical waste water treatment plant (WWTP) including a Reverse Osmosis unit will be constructed at the Plant Site to treat:

Water captured from the Tailings Dump 84

A groundwater and surface water seepage containment system will be constructed along the western, northern and portions of the eastern sides of the dump, and an existing cutoff berm and trench will be utilized along the southern side of the dump to collect seepage; bedrock along the eastern side of the dump will be relied upon to eliminate most of the groundwater seepage in that direction; some of the captured seepage will go to the WWTP, and some of it will be sent to a Tailings Basin pond.

Runoff, process water, and excess Tailings Basin pond water (cont.)

13



Mechanical and Non-Mechanical Treatment of Surface Water and/or Groundwater (cont.)

Biofilter/Detention Basin (Non-Mechanical Treatment). In 1998, after the pit was backfilled, runoff from the southeast corner of the mine site was directed to a man-made biofilter/detention basin in efforts to “clarify collected runoff ” and “improve water quality.”

29 Soil sampling in this particular corner

of the mine site, where the ore crusher, rail spur and WWTF had been located during the mining years, has demonstrated elevated levels of

copper that appear to correlate with high levels of copper in runoff.145

Prior to 2012, the biofilter discharge was directed to a small tributary of the Flambeau River known as Stream C, declared navigable at the

time of the mine permit hearing in 1990.143, 159

Despite non-mechan-ical treatment of the runoff, however, the discharge consistently contained copper levels exceeding the ATC set to protect fish and

other aquatic species (ATC for copper ≈ 3-5 ppb).20, 21, 24

Environ- mental monitoring reports show that at times the copper levels in the water exiting the biofilter (e.g., 42 ppb in Sep 2011) were even higher than the levels measured in the runoff entering the biofilter for treatment (e.g., 17 ppb in Sep 2011), the opposite of the desired

effect. 30

In 2010 the Wisconsin DNR initiated a study to assess the health of Stream-C and later issued a report in which the Department con-cluded, “Water quality monitoring done at the site between 2002 and 2011 showed that Stream C and its contributing drainageways contained copper and zinc concentrations that frequently exceeded acute toxicity criteria (ATC). On average, copper exceeded ATC’s in

92% of samples, and zinc exceeded ATC’s in 46% of samples.” 24

NB: Upon recommendation of the Wisconsin DNR, Stream C was added to the EPA’s Section 303(d) Clean Water Act list of “impaired waters,” effective April 2012, for copper and zinc toxicity linked to the

Flambeau Mine operation.1, 2

Infiltration Basin (Non-Mechanical Treatment). In early 2012, Rio Tinto converted its biofilter/detention basin in the southeast corner of the mine site to an infiltration basin to treat polluted runoff. As described in the work plan prepared by Rio Tinto

consultant Foth (Hutchison/Kozicki/ Donohue), 31

“Stormwater directed to the device percolates through mulch and engineered soil, where it is treated by a variety of physical, chemical and biological

processes before infiltrating into the native soil.” 32

Foth claimed the new basin would be able to withstand a 100-year flood,

32 but for three years in a row (2012, 2013 and 2014) it was not

even able to withstand Rusk County’s spring melt (i.e., the basin

malfunctioned and had to be pumped to avoid overtopping).33

In May 2015 Foth submitted a new surface water management plan for the southeast corner of the mine site that resembles the earlier

biofilter plan.34

It eliminates the malfunctioning infiltration basin and reverts to a system of collecting runoff in shallow ponds and routing the overflow to Stream C. The Wisconsin DNR received public

comment on the plan 86

and proceeded to approve it, with certain

conditions, in late September 2015.166

Plant Site. 88 (cont.)

During mine operations and extending through the reclamation period (up to about year 52), any “reject concentrate” from the WWTP (Reverse Osmosis) will be transported by rail tank cars to the Mine Site for treatment in the WWTF (see below). After year 52, the WWTP will convert to a Reverse Osmosis + Evaporation process and the resultant residual solids

generated from thermal treatment “would be transported off-site for disposal.” 88, 89

Leakage from the plant site’s hydromet residue basin will NOT be treated in the WWTP during active mine operations. A leakage collection system will be placed beneath the basin. Leakage that is collected during years 1 to 20 will be pumped back to a pond maintained on top of the basin. The basin and pond eventually will be dewatered and covered as part of site reclamation. Any water drained from the pond and basin at that time will be treated at the WWTP. Long-term maintenance “may consist of periodic pumping of remaining drainage into

tank trucks for transportation, treatment and disposal, as appropriate.” 90, 91

Water treatment at the Plant Site will be required “indefinitely” (minimum 500 years). 46, 47, 76

Mine Site. 83

A waste water treatment facility (WWTF) will be constructed at the Mine Site to treat:

Process Water – i.e., water captured from: o Category 1 waste rock stockpile (this is a permanent unlined stockpile that will

be surrounded by a groundwater capture system) 77

o Liners beneath Category 2/3 and Category 4 waste rock stockpiles and the ore

surge pile (these are temporary stockpiles) o Pit inflows of groundwater during mine operations o East Pit and Central Pit during backfill operations, if dewatering is needed o Ancillary Mine Features

West Pit lake water (After mining is completed, the West Pit will be filled with

groundwater and surface water to become a pit lake) 142

“Reject Concentrate” from the Waste Water Treatment Plant at the Plant Site (see above)

Pore water from backfilled east/central mine pit 82

NB: The NorthMet plan does not include provisions for installing a groundwater capture system around the unlined mine pit, so it is unclear from the limited informa-tion in the FEIS how the contaminated pore water will be captured so that it can be treated. Nor is there any indication in the FEIS of how efficient the employed system might be in capturing pore water from a mine feature as large as the unlined pit (207 acres in size, extending up to 700 feet beneath the surface and containing roughly 140 million tons of waste rock).

The WWTF will use “chemical precipitation and filtration up to the end of reclamation (approx-imately mine year 52) and then be converted to RO [Reverse Osmosis] (or an equivalent

treatment technology) to provide water treatment during post-closure maintenance.” 87

Until the hydromet plant becomes operational (sometime between years 3-5), all sludge from the WWTF will be disposed off-site. Once the hydromet plant is up and running, sludge produced by the WWTF will be trucked to the hydromet plant and: (a) autoclaved to recover metals; or (b) disposed directly into the hydromet residue basin.

After reclamation of the

hydromet residue basin commences (about year 21), all waste will be disposed off-site. 58

Water treatment at the Mine Site will be required indefinitely (minimum of 200 years). 46, 47, 76

NB: The FEIS provides only limited information on the composition of the WWTF sludge and

no information regarding its volume. Nor does it include any information on the composition or volume of the RO “residual solids.” In terms of PolyMet’s plans for off-site disposal of sludge and residual solids, the FEIS does not identify where or in which watershed the off-site disposal is located, what transportation corridor would be utilized or if any nearby landfill could even accommodate the large volumes of waste generated over hundreds of years.

14



Affected Watersheds

Flambeau River Watershed. 101 The Flambeau

Mine was located next to the Flambeau River in Rusk County, Wisconsin, about 15 miles upstream of its confluence with the Chippewa River (which drains to the Mississippi River).

Baseline: Flambeau River. The Flambeau EIS contained baseline

surface water quality data for the Flambeau River.102

Steam-C. This small tributary of the Flambeau River crosses the southeast corner of the mine site and was identified as

navigable in the Flambeau EIS. 143, 159

NB: No baseline surface water quality data was reported for Stream-C.

Wetlands. The Flambeau EIS identified 8 acres of directly impacted wetlands at the project site and 11 acres of indirectly

impacted wetlands in adjacent lands. 7 NB: No baseline water

quality data was reported for any of these wetlands except for a

single water sample collected from one of them in 1987.103

Impacts to Flambeau River. Water quality impacts to the

river from 3 different sources were assessed in the EIS process:

Discharges from the mine’s WWTP

Discharges from the mine’s two settling ponds; and

Flow of contaminated pore water from the backfilled pit.

The first 2 discharges were regulated by a WPDES (Wisconsin Pollu-tion Discharge Elimination System) permit, and the EIS stated they “would not cause the concentration of any substances in the river to

exceed the most stringent applicable water quality standard.” 104

The third discharge (from the backfilled pit) was modeled in a report

prepared by Rio Tinto consultant Foth.105

First off, Foth stated, “all of the groundwater flowing through the Type-II [high sulfur] waste rock in the reclaimed pit will exit the pit through the Precambrian rock in the

river pillar and flow directly into the bed of the Flambeau River.” 106

Foth then calculated the concentrations of 4 contaminants they expec-ted to see in the pore water and stated that, with regard to 3 of them (copper, manganese and iron), “the predicted concentrations for these compounds in the groundwater emanating from the Type-II waste rock in the reclaimed pit are well within the range for background norms at

the site.” 106

A fourth contaminant, sulfate, was predicted to increase above its background level of 10 mg/l to about 1,360 mg/l.

Based on calculations that incorporated the predicted levels of con-taminants in the pore water, the flow rate of the Flambeau River, and a modeled rate for groundwater flow from the backfilled pit to the river, Foth concluded “the groundwater emanating from the Type-II waste

rock in the reclaimed pit will pose no threat to the Flambeau River.” 107

NB: With regard to the Flambeau River calculations cited above, field data from the mine site is now available, and it shows that peak contaminant levels in the pore water were significantly underestimated by Foth for each of the modeled contaminants (see earlier section entitled “Groundwater Quality Modeling at Mine Site”). In addition, it appears that Foth underestimated the flow rate for pore water from the backfilled pit to the Flambeau River. A recalculation using 1998

field data results in a flux 126 times higher than predicted.108

(cont.)

Affected Watersheds. The Co-Lead Agencies and Cooperating Agencies

participating in the NorthMet EIS process have identified several different flowpaths for contaminants from the NorthMet project site:

● Southward Flow: (See Maps in Appendix F – Figures 5.2.2-7 and 5.2.2-9)

○ Partridge River / St. Louis River / Lake Superior Watershed

○ Embarrass River / St. Louis River / Lake Superior Watershed

● Northward Flow toward existing Peter-Mitchell taconite mine pits:

○ Birch Lake / Kawishiwi River / Rainy River Watershed

Southward Flow: Partridge River Watershed. The NorthMet FEIS states (based on

modeling done by PolyMet consultant Barr Engineering) that the Mine Site, Transportation & Utility Corridor, and certain parts of the Plant Site (the former LTV processing plant and a

small portion of the existing LTV tailings dump) drain to the Partridge River watershed.114 The

Partridge River, in turn, drains to the St. Louis River and, ultimately, Lake Superior.

Several different groundwater flow paths for contaminants to the Partridge River have been

identified and mapped in the FEIS.163

For example, the FEIS states that the backfilled east mine pit “would continue to provide contaminant loading [to the Partridge River] for a minimum

of 200 years.” 75 (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 5.2.2-7)

Baseline. 115 The NorthMet FEIS contains baseline surface water quality data for the Partridge River, several of its tributaries (Longnose Creek, Wetlegs Creek, Wyman Creek and West Pit Outlet Creek), Colby Lake, and Whitewater Reservoir.

NB: The FEIS does not offer baseline water quality data for Second Creek (a tributary of the Partridge River) even though it states that “groundwater in some portions of the [existing LTV] Tailings Basin flows to the south to form the

headwaters of Second Creek” 134

and that the creek “could be notably affected by

the NorthMet Project.” 116

Wetlands in several different areas that, according to modeling supplied by Barr Engineering, are for the most part in the Partridge River watershed were evaluated:

Area 1. The region known as “Area 1” on agency drawings 135

includes 1,298 acres of wetlands within the Mine Site, 7 acres within the Transportation and Utility Corridor, and additional wetlands surrounding the Mine Site that bring the grand

total to 465 wetlands covering about 11,200 acres. 118

The FEIS states, “Currently, runoff from the northernmost area of the Mine Site generally drains north into the One Hundred Mile Swamp and associated wetlands along the Partridge River. These wetlands form the headwaters of the Partridge River, which meanders around the east end of the Mine Site before turning southwest. … The majority of the mine site, approximately 80%, drains south to the Partridge River through extensive wetland complexes. … Surface water runoff and local groundwater contributions from uplands can cause increased mineral content

within the water in adjacent wetlands.” 119

Second Creek Area. This area includes 30 wetlands totaling ~ 300 acres.124, 134

Colby Lake Water Pipeline Corridor. This area includes 14 wetlands covering 7

acres. 124, 137

NB: While the FEIS identifies and characterizes some of the wetlands that will be

impacted (either directly or indirectly) or could be impacted by the NorthMet project,117, 123

it offers no baseline water quality data for any of them. (continued on next page)

15



Affected Watersheds (cont.)

Impacts to Flambeau River (cont.)

Since 1991, Rio Tinto has been reporting limited water quality data to

the Wisconsin DNR from two sampling sites in the Flambeau River: 109

SW-1 (upstream of the Flambeau Mine site); and

SW-2 (downstream of the mine site, but upstream of where Stream C discharges to the river)

Both publicly and in reports submitted to the DNR, the company con-

tinues to claim that “the Flambeau River remains fully protected.” 110

Impacts to Stream C. Stream C, a tributary of the Flambeau

River that crosses the southeast corner of the Flambeau Mine site (where the ore crusher and rail spur were located during the mining years), has been registering elevated levels of copper since at least

2002, when sampling first began. 20, 21

The problem is occurring despite the employment of non-mechanical water treatment processes (biofilters and infiltration basins) to treat contaminated stormwater runoff at the site.

In 2010 the Wisconsin DNR initiated a study to assess the health of the tributary and later issued a report in which the Department concluded, “Water quality monitoring done at the site between 2002 and 2011 showed that Stream C and its contributing drainageways contained copper and zinc concentrations that frequently exceeded acute toxicity criteria (ATC). On average, copper exceeded ATC’s in

92% of samples, and zinc exceeded ATC’s in 46% of samples.” 144

Upon recommendation of the Wisconsin DNR, Stream C was added to the EPA’s Section 303(d) Clean Water Act list of “impaired waters,” effective April 2012, for copper and zinc toxicity linked to the

Flambeau Mine operation.1, 2

NB: LAWSUIT. In 2011 a complaint 149

was filed against Rio Tinto

in federal court, alleging the company was in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) because it had never obtained a WPDES permit to regulate the discharge of contaminated stormwater runoff from its biofilter to Stream C. The U.S. District Court agreed with the plaintiffs that: (a) the contaminated discharge was reaching a water of the United States; and (b) the company was in violation of the Clean

Water Act by virtue of not having a WPDES permit.150, 151

The decision, however, was later overturned, on a technicality, by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The appellate court did not disagree with the lower court’s finding that Rio Tinto was discharging pollutants to a water of the United States from its biofilter. This, of course, would have been difficult to justify, given that Stream C is now on the EPA’s list of impaired waters (established pursuant to the Clean Water Act).

Rather, the appellate court focused on a very narrow issue regarding whether or not Rio Tinto could be held accountable for the company’s failure to have the federally-mandated WPDES permit. In its August

2013 decision,152

the court found that the mine permit issued by the State of Wisconsin to Rio Tinto shielded the company from prosecu-tion under the CWA (even though the state-issued permit had not put any limits on the amount of contaminants that could be discharged to Stream C).The court also denied a petition for rehearing and saddled

the plaintiffs with a portion of Rio Tinto’s court costs.153, 154

Southward Flow: Partridge River Watershed (cont.)

Predicted Impacts. 120 The NorthMet FEIS contains water quality projections for the

Partridge River and Colby Lake. NB: Projections for wetlands and other surface waters within the Partridge River watershed, such as Second Creek, are not included.

NB: PolyMet consultant Barr Engineering’s prediction of exclusive southward flow of contam-inated waters from the NorthMet Mine Site to the Partridge River has been challenged (see below discussion of Northward Flow)

Southward Flow: Embarrass River Watershed. The NorthMet FEIS states (based

on modeling done by PolyMet consultant Barr Engineering) that most of the existing LTV

tailings dump and existing LTV emergency basin drain to the Embarrass River Watershed.114

The Embarrass River, in turn, drains to the St. Louis River and, ultimately, Lake Superior.

Several different flow paths for contaminants to the Embarrass River have been identi-fied and mapped in the FEIS.164 For example, the FEIS states that, while PolyMet predicts the containment system it plans to install around the tailings dump at the Plant Site will capture about 90% of the groundwater seepage, “Tailings seepage bypassing the containment system (approximately 20 gallons per minute) would continue to enter the northern, northwestern, and western surficial flowpaths, and migrate slowly toward the Embarrass River.” 165 (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 5.2.2-9)

NB: Even though the FEIS states that “groundwater in some portions of the [existing LTV] Tailings Basin flows to the south to form the headwaters of Second Creek” and that the creek “could be notably affected by the NorthMet Project,” the surface and groundwater flowpath

diagram for the Tailings Dump / Plant Site in the FEIS does not show this flowpath. 164 (See Map in Appendix F – Figure 5.2.2-9)

Baseline. 121 The NorthMet FEIS contains baseline surface water quality data for the Embarrass River, several of its tributaries (Spring Mine Creek, Trimble Creek, Mud Lake Creek and Unnamed Creek), and surface seeps from the existing LTV Tailings Dump. The FEIS states that Trimble Creek, Mud Lake Creek and Unnamed Creek “currently

receive Tailings Basin seepage with its associated water quality.” 122

Wetlands in several different areas that, according to modeling supplied by Barr Engin-eering, are for the most part in the Embarrass River Watershed were also evaluated:

Area 2. The region identified as “Area 2” in the FEIS 136 is just east, north and NW

of the Tailings Dump / Plant Site. It has 373 wetlands covering 8,622 acres. 124

NB: None of the lands to the south or southwest of the Tailings Dump were included for evaluation (with the exception of the Second Creek Area, which was incorpor-ated into the Partridge River watershed evaluation – see above).

Tailings Dump/Plant Site. This area has 52 wetlands covering about 275 acres.124

NB: While the FEIS identifies and characterizes some of the wetlands that will be

impacted (either directly or indirectly) or could be impacted by the NorthMet project,117, 123

it offers no baseline water quality data for any of them.

Predicted Impacts. 125 The NorthMet FEIS contains water quality projections for the Embarrass River, and Trimble Creek, Mud Lake Creek and Unnamed Creek. NB: Projections for wetlands or any other surface waters within the Embarrass River watershed are not included.

Northward Flow: Rainy River Watershed. A report submitted on behalf of a cooper-

ating agency participating in the NorthMet EIS process states, with regard to groundwater flow at the NorthMet Mine Site: “Detailed (MODFLOW) and simplistic (MathCad) models predict

that a northward contaminant flowpath is probable under likely closure conditions.” 126

(cont.)

See Appendix D for graph

16



Affected Watersheds (cont.)

Northward Flow: Rainy River Watershed (cont.)

As the report explains, the northward flow is expected because of a “strong bedrock gradient” toward the existing Northshore Peter-Mitchell taconite mine pits located north of the PolyMet

Mine Site. The gradient will exist not only at the time of PolyMet closure, but in the longterm.127

The report goes on to state: “In addition to potential for northward flow of contaminants in the bedrock … there is evidence that flow may be to the north in the surficial aquifer,” again related to the proximity of the Mine Site to the Peter-Mitchell pits. “The drawdown by the over 300 foot deep taconite pits is so great that the surficial aquifer becomes partly dewatered and

all baseflow in the upper Partridge [River] ceases.” 128

As described in a news report, “The [Peter-Mitchell] pits, which sit about a mile north of the proposed PolyMet mine, currently discharge in several directions. Upon closure, however, all of the discharge is slated to enter Birch Lake, part of the Kawishiwi River, a major BWCAW

[Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness] watershed.” 129 According to the FEIS, “Predicted ultimate outflow from the [Peter Mitchell pit] would be from the northeast end of the pit, to the Dunka River in the Rainy River watershed.” 73

The cooperating agency’s report conflicts with conclusions drawn by PolyMet consultant Barr Engineering, who had used the same MODFLOW computer program but predicted exclusive southward flow of contaminated waters from the NorthMet Mine Site to the Partridge River (see above discussion related to the Partridge River Watershed). As the agency’s report explains, Barr “incorrectly bounded and calibrated” the Mine Site MODFLOW model, rendering it “unlikely to generate accurate predictions.” When those mistakes were corrected, the modeling indicated that, at closure, “contaminants are likely to flow north in addition to the

southward direction currently assumed by project reports.” 130

NB: The conclusions drawn by Barr Engineering with regard to exclusive southward flow of contaminated waters from the NorthMet Mine Site have been relied upon by state and federal agencies charged with preparing the NorthMet EIS, and those same conclusions appear in the FEIS. As stated in the cooperating agency’s report, “Evaluation of contaminant flow to the

north must be conducted and impacts predicted.” 131

Mine Phases and Time Line

Timeline: Construction/Preproduction: 2 years (1991-1993)

Operations: 4 years (1993-1997)

Backfilling complete: Fall of 1997

Reclamation: 1997-present

Post-closure MECHANICAL water treatment: less than a year (WWTF was decommissioned in August 1998)

Post-closure NON-MECHANICAL water treatment: 1998 to present (ongoing):

○ Construction and operation of biofilter to treat contaminated stormwater runoff: 1998-2012. NB: Biofilter discharge still contained elevated levels of copper, and the receiving water (Stream C) is now on the EPA’s impaired waters list (see above sections entitled “Treatment of Groundwater and/or Surface Water Contamina- tion” and “Affected Watersheds”).

○ Conversion of biofilter to infiltration basin: 2012. NB: Infiltration basin malfunctioned in 2012, 2013 and 2014 (had to be pumped to avoid over-topping)

33

○ Replacement of infiltration basin with alternative non-

mechanical water treatment system: proposed in 2015.34

Timeline: 99, 100

Construction: 18 months

Operations: 20 years

Reclamation and closure: 20 years

Post-closure mechanical & non-mechanical water treatment: Needed “indefinitely”:

“Water quality modeling performed in support of the FEIS indicates that water treatment systems would be needed at the Mine Site and Plant Site indefinitely [minimum 200 years at the Mine Site and a minimum of 500 years at the Plant Site] 47. … The NorthMet Project Proposed Action includes long-term mechanical treatment (RO [Reverse Osmosis] or equivalently performing technology) at both the Mine Site and Plant Site with a goal of transitioning to a non-mechanical water treatment technology requiring less maintenance over the long term. … Both mechanical and non-mechanical treatment would require periodic maintenance and monitoring activities for as long as treatment is required (indefinitely).” 76

NB: Questions have been raised regarding PolyMet’s goal of eventually transitioning from mechanical to non-mechanical water treatment. As stated in comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Section of Fisheries): “The overview of the transitional approach from mechanical to non-mechanical treatment technologies as presented is highly speculative, particularly in terms of success in development of and

timing of installation of a successful system.” 160

Another consideration, raised by others, is that non-mechanical water treatment methods have proven ineffective at Flambeau.

17



Investor

Kennecott (Salt Lake City, Utah) Rio Tinto (London, UK)

PolyMet (Toronto, Ontario) Glencore (Baar, Switzerland)

Closing comments:

Mine proponents in Minnesota have drawn heavily on the example of Wisconsin’s Flambeau Mine in efforts to convince the public, state and federal lawmakers, county officials and department regulators that copper-nickel mining can be done in Minnesota “without polluting local waters” (Appendix A).

Indeed, a plaque on display at the Flambeau site refers to the mine as “the newest and smallest copper mine in the world,” so one might suspect that, if any mine could “get it right” in terms of protecting local waters, it should have been Flambeau.

Besides providing environmental monitoring data and references to technical reports regarding groundwater and surface water pollution at the Flambeau Mine site, this report has drawn the contrast between the Flambeau and PolyMet projects (size, impacted wetland acreage, presence or absence of tailings, volume and composition of waste rock, duration of mechanical water treatment, etc.).

No doubt there are lessons to be learned from the Flambeau Mine. But it is up to you to decide the most appropriate way to compare the two projects when trying to determine if the State of Minnesota should move forward with the PolyMet proposal.

Thank you,

Laura Gauger Duluth, MN 55805 Email: [email protected]

18

REFERENCES

Much of the material referenced in the Flambeau v. NorthMet comparison chart is from the following two reports:

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Flambeau Mine, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, March 1990. This report is abbreviated in the below list as: Flambeau FEIS, March 1990.

Final Environmental Impact Statement, NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service, November 2015. This report is abbreviated in the below list as: NorthMet FEIS, November 2015.

The above two reports and other cited references are provided on a DVD that accompanies this report (inside back cover).

1. (03 on DVD) Flambeau Mine Clean Water Act Lawsuit, Documents 103 and 202: Plaintiffs’ Declaration and WDNR Report Regarding Impairment of Stream C, United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-cv-45.

2. (04 on DVD) Approval of Wisconsin’s 2012 list of impaired waters (Section 303(d), Clean Water Act), United States Environmental Protection Agency, June 25, 2014.

3. (05 on DVD) Excerpt: Environmental Monitoring (Fourth Quarter 2014), TAD Exceedances, Flambeau Mining Company, January 29, 2015. NB: For a schematic showing location of monitoring

wells cited in this Environmental monitoring report, please see next reference.4

4. (06 on DVD) Evidence on the Flambeau Mine for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Minnesota DNR, Laura Gauger, Mar 2014. NB: This report includes a schematic showing location of monitoring wells at the Flambeau Mine site. It also contains 21 Appendices that are available on this DVD.

5. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990, p. 5.


7. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990, pp. iii, 60-64.

8. (07 on DVD) Reclaimed Flambeau Mine, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website (saved on July 27, 2015), pp. 2, 4.

9. (08 on DVD) The Mineral Industry of Wisconsin, Minerals Yearbook – 1997, Volume II (Area Reports: Domestic), United States Geological Survey, pp. 1-2.

10. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990 pp. 11, 14.

11. (09 on DVD) 1996 Backfilling Plan for Stockpiled Type II Material, Flambeau Mining Company, October 1996.

12. (10 on DVD) 1997 Backfilling Plan for Stockpiled Type II Material, Flambeau Mining Company, March 1997.

13. (10 on DVD) 1997 Backfilling Plan for Stockpiled Type II Material, Flambeau Mining Company, March 1997, p. ii.

14. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990, March 1990, pp. 7-10.

15. Sulfur contents of 5 different waste rock samples were reported in the Flambeau FEIS. Values ranged from < 0.1% to 4.8% (reported values were < 0.1%, 0.49%, 0.70%, 2% and

4.8% sulfur).16

The report did not indicate, however, the approximate tonnages of waste rock thought to be associated with any given sulfur content. Hence, based on information contained in the Final EIS, it is not possible to say how much of the 4.6 million tons of Type II waste rock contained 4.8% sulfur, how much of it contained 2% sulfur, etc. It’s also possible that specimens with even higher levels of sulfur may have been missed in the sampling program.

16. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990, pp. 25-26.

17. (11 on DVD) Flambeau Mining Company 2013 Annual Report, p. 3.

18. (12 on DVD) Flambeau – A Precambrian Supergene Enriched Massive Sulfide Deposit, Edwarde May, Geoscience Wisconsin, July 1977.

19. (07 on DVD) Reclaimed Flambeau Mine, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources website (saved on July 27, 2015), p. 2.

20. (13 on DVD) Report on Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination at the Flambeau Mine, David Chambers and Kendra Zamzow, Center for Science in Public Participation, June 2009.

21. (06 on DVD) Evidence on the Flambeau Mine for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Minnesota DNR, Laura Gauger, Mar 2014. NB: This report includes a schematic showing location of monitoring wells at Flambeau Mine site. It also contains 21 Appendices that are available on this DVD.

22. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989, pp.27-28 (L-29 to L-30).

23. (11 on DVD) Flambeau Mining Company 2013 Annual Report, Appendix A and Appendix B.

24. (15 on DVD) Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Flambeau Mine Site, Craig Roesler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, April 2012.

19

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/flambeau-cwa-lawsuit-court-docs-103-and-202.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/excerpt_-epa-approval-of-wdnr-2012-303d-list-2_streamc.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/05_excerpt_flambeau_gw-results_4th-qtr-2014.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/comments_laura-gauger_northmet-sdeis_mar-10-2014_final_as-sent_livelinksaddedmay2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/flambeau_finaleis_march1990.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/reclaimed-flambeau-mine-wisconsin-dnr-website_copy-made-july-27-2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/08_mineral-industry-of-wisconsin_usgs_1997.pdf


https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/backfill_plan_1996-oct.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/backfill_plan_1997_merged_complete2.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/backfill_plan_1997_merged_complete2.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/appendix-c_fmc-2013-annual-report.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/ed-may_geosciencewisconsin_july-1977.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/reclaimed-flambeau-mine-wisconsin-dnr-website_copy-made-july-27-2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/exhibit-1-_-chambers-zamzow_groundwater-and-surface-water-5jun09.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/comments_laura-gauger_northmet-sdeis_mar-10-2014_final_as-sent_livelinksaddedmay2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/appendix-l_flambeau-mine-permit-app_dec-1989_highlighted.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/appendix-c_fmc-2013-annual-report.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/appendix-b_dnr-flambeau-mine-assessement-final-report_apr-2012.pdf


26. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989, p. 28 (L-30).

27. (16 on DVD) Chapter NR 182 – Metallic Mining Wastes, Wisconsin Administrative Code, current as of March 2011.


29. (17 on DVD) Supplement to the Surface Reclamation Plan for the Flambeau Mine, Applied Ecological Services, December 1997, pp. 8, 10-11, and Appendix B.

30. (18 on DVD) Surface Water Monitoring – Stream C and 0.9-acre Biofilter, Flambeau Mining Company, January 20, 2012.

31. (19 on DVD) Copper Park Business and Recreation Area Work Plan, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, May 2011.

32. (19 on DVD) Copper Park Business and Recreation Area Work Plan, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, May 2011, Sections 3.3.1 and 2.2.4.1.

33. (20 on DVD) Email correspondence regarding malfunction of infiltration basins at Flambeau Mine site in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

34. (21 on DVD) Copper Park Business and Recreation Area Work Plan Supplement, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, May 2015.

35. (22 on DVD) Flambeau Mine Epilogue, by Dr. Gene LaBerge, Institute of Lake Superior Geology Newsletter, No. 3, 1997.

36. (23 on DVD) Gold enrichment in the Precambrian age gossan of the Flambeau VMS deposit, Rusk County, Wisconsin, by Andrew M. Ross, Geological Society of America Abstracts, Vol. 28, No. 7, A-152, 1996.



39. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. 3-17.

40. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-182 and 4-225.


42. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-257 and 5-347 to 5-348.

43. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Table 3.2-4 (p. 3-40).

44. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. 3-2 and Table 3.2-4 (p. 3-40).

45. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015 , pp. 5-255, 5-265 to 5-269, 5-321 to 5-322, and 5-346 to 5--347.


47. (24 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Appendix C – Tribal Agency Position Supporting Materials. See page 12 of the table toward the end of Appendix C entitled: “NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange PSDEIS (ver. 2) – Tribal Comments and Co-Lead Agencies’ Dispositions, 8/19/2013.” For your convenience, a copy of this page (with highlighting added) is included at the very beginning of the posted DVD document.

48. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-104 to 3-107.


50. (25 on DVD) NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package, Version 10, PolyMet, March 2013, p. 39.

51. NorthMet Project Geotechnical Data Package, Volume 2 - Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility, Version 3, PolyMet, October 12, 2012, p. 51.

52. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-69, A-552, and A-586.

53. The flotation concentrate sent to the Hydrometallurgical Plant for processing will contain about 20.6% sulfur.54

“The Hydrometallurgical Process would generate residues from five sources: (1) autoclave residue from the leach residue filter; (2) high-purity gypsum [calcium sulfate] from the solution-neutralizing filter …; (3) gypsum, iron, and aluminum hydroxide from the iron and aluminum filter; (4) magnesium hydroxide precipitate from the magnesium removal tank; and (5) other minor plant spillage sources. In addition to the above-listed sources, solid wastes from the Mine Site WWTF would be recycled directly into the Hydrometallurgical Plant to recover metals, creating additional waste. The Mine Site WWTF solids would be similar to the hydrometallurgical residue, consisting primarily of gypsum, metal hydroxides, and calcite. … These wastes would be combined and disposed of in the Hydro-

metallurgical Residue Facility ….” 55 Testing of combined residues showed a maximum observed sulfate concentration of about 7,300 mg/l.

56 That equates to 0.73% sulfate (w/v).

54. (26 on DVD) Complete Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, NorthMet Project, December 2008, pp. 3-24 to 3-25.


56. (25 on DVD) NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package, Version 10, PolyMet, March 2013, pp. 41-42.

57. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-125, 5-99, 5-101 to 5-104, A-314, and A-640; Figures 3.2-12, 3.2-13, 3.2-17, 3.2-18, and 3.2-19.

58. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-53 to 3-57, 3-72 to 3-79, 3-134 to 3-135, 5-97, 5-101, 5-178, A-314, and A-640.

20



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/16_chapter-nr-182-wisconsin-administrative-code_mar-2011.pdf


https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/proposed-modification-to-the-approved-surface-reclamation-plan-for-the-flambeau-mine_december-1997.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/fall-2011-biofilter-data.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/copper-park-business-and-rec-area-work-plan_may-2011_complete.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/copper-park-business-and-rec-area-work-plan_may-2011_complete.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/email-correspondence-malfunction-of-infiltration-basins-flambeau.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/copper-park-business-and-rec-area-work-plan-supplement_may-2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/ilsg-newsletter_1997.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/geological-society-of-america-abstracts-volume-28-no-7-a-152-1996.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/0000_nmet_feis_complete_sm.pdf








https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/24_feis_northmet_appendix-c_nov-2015-sm.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/waste-characterization-data-package-ver-10-polymet-7mar13_sm.pdf


https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/polymet_cpdeis_12-20-08.pdf





59. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. ES-23, and 3-44 to 3-47.


61. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Table 3.2-7 and p. 3-47

62. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. ES-23, 3-47 to 3-49, and 5-7.

63. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. ES-23, 3-47, 3-64 to 3-65, and 5-6 to 5-7.

64. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-64 to 3-65, 5-236, and A-564.


66. (27 on DVD) NorthMet Project Geotechnical Data Package, Volume 1 – Flotation Tailings Basin, Version 4, PolyMet, April 12, 2013, Attachment J.




70. (25 on DVD) NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package, Version 10, PolyMet, March 2013, p. 155.


72. (25 on DVD) NorthMet Project Waste Characterization Data Package, Version 10, PolyMet, March 2013.


74. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Figures 3.2-19, 5.2.2-20 and 5.2.2-21.

75. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-173 to 5-174; NorthMet PFEIS (49 on DVD), June 2015, pp. 5-172 to 5-173.

76. (49 on DVD) NorthMet PFEIS, June 2015, p. ES-26.

77. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-47 to 3-49, and 5-7.

78. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Table 4.2.2-6 (pp. 4-61 to 4-63).

79. (28 on DVD) NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11, PolyMet, March 2015, Large Table 3.


81. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-101 to 5-102; also see p. 3-64.

82. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. A-658, and A-662 to A-663 (also see pp. 5-103, 5-121 to 5-122, and A-564 to A-565)

83. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-47 to 3-61, 3-64, 3-72 to 3-73, and 3-81; Figures 3.2-12, 3.2-13, 3.2-17, 3.2-18, and 3.2-19.

84. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-119 to 3-123, and 5-7 to 5-8.

85. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989, p. 30 (L-32).

86. (29 on DVD) Comments submitted to Wisconsin DNR regarding proposal from Flambeau Mining Company for an “Artificial Waterbody Connected to a Navigable Stream” (Docket Number: IP-NO-2015-55-01907), Laura Gauger, August 19, 2015.


88. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-119 to 3-130, and 3-139 to 3-140; Figures 3.2-12, 3.2-13, 3.2-17, 3.2-18, and 3.2-19.

89. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-103 and A-640.

90. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Figures 3.2-12, 3.2-13, 3.2-17, 3.2-18, and 3.2-19.

91. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-125, and 3-134 to 3-135.

92. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Appendix B - Underground Mining Alternative Assessment for the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange Environmental Impact Statement – Sep. 27, 2013, p. 5.

93. (30 on DVD) Draft Environmental Impact Statement, NorthMet Project, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and United States Army Corps of Engineers, October 2009, p. 3-2.


95. It appears that projected zinc production has not been reported, even though zinc is one of the metals to be extracted at NorthMet, as mentioned on page 1-1 of the Complete

Preliminary Draft EIS for the project.96

21








https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/geotechnical-data-package-volume-1_-polymet_apr-2013_-excerpt.pdf










https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/polymetpfeis_complete_june-2015_sm.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/water_modeling_data_package_vol_2-plant_site_v11_mar2015_sm.pdf







https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/29_comments-on-may-2015-fmc-work-plan_gauger_final.pdf







https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/deis_oct2009_volume-i.pdf


96. (26 on DVD) Complete Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, NorthMet Project, December 2008, p. 1-1.



99. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. ES-12.


101. (02 on DVD) Flambeau FEIS, March 1990, pp. 31-34, and 53-64.




105. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989.

106. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989, pp. 30-31 (L-32 to L-33).

107. (14 on DVD) Prediction of Groundwater Quality Downgradient of the Reclaimed Pit for the Kennecott Flambeau Project, Foth & Van Dyke, Revised December 1989, pp. 33-34 (L-35 to L-36).

108. (31 on DVD) Memo to Neil Kmiecik (Biological Services Director, Wisconsin DNR), August 13, 2001, pp. 2-3.

109. (11 on DVD) Flambeau Mining Company 2013 Annual Report, pp. B-128 to B-130.

110. (32 on DVD) Flambeau Mining Company 2014 Annual Report, p. i, January 30, 2015.

111. (33 on DVD) NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 1 – Mine Site, Version 14, PolyMet, February 27, 2015, Large Tables 4 and 6.

112. (01 on DVD) The water quality model for the NorthMet Mine Site was a 200-year simulation, but year-200 water quality projections for East Pit lower backfill pore water are not included in the

NorthMet Water Modeling Data Package (Version 14),111

and only minimal information is included in the NorthMet FEIS (pp. 5-121 to 5-122).












124. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-190, and 4-192 to 4-193.


126. (34 on DVD) Comments on PolyMet mine site contaminant northward flowpath and groundwater model calibration, GLIFWC, August 11, 2015, p. 1.

127. (34 on DVD) Comments on PolyMet mine site contaminant northward flowpath and groundwater model calibration, GLIFWC, August 11, 2015, pp. 4-5.

128. (34 on DVD) Comments on PolyMet mine site contaminant northward flowpath and groundwater model calibration, GLIFWC, August 11, 2015, pp. 5-6.

129. (35 on DVD) Agency: PolyMet discharge would flow north to BWCA, by Marshall Helmberger, Timberjay, Ely, MN, August 19, 2015.

130. (34 on DVD) Comments on PolyMet mine site contaminant northward flowpath and groundwater model calibration, GLIFWC, August 11, 2015, pp. 1, 8, and 9.

131. (34 on DVD) Comments on PolyMet mine site contaminant northward flowpath and groundwater model calibration, GLIFWC, August 11, 2015, p. 9.


133. (15 on DVD) Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Flambeau Mine Site, Craig Roesler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, April 2012, p 3.

22













https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/31_memo-to-wdnr_aug-2001.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/43_fmc-2013-annual-report.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/32_cov-ltr_fmc-annual-report_20141.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/water-modeling-data-package-vol-1-mine-site-v14-feb2015_sm.pdf















https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/34_comments-northmet_aug-2015-and-june-2015.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/35_polymet-discharge-would-flow-north-to-bwca_timberjay_aug-20151.pdf





134. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. 4-108 and Figure 5.2.2-9 (also see Figure 4.2.3-6 for more detail on the Second Creek area).

135. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-159 to 4-160; Figures 4.2.3-1 and 4.2.3-2.

136. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-159 to 4-160; Figures 4.2.3-1 and 4.2.3-5.

137. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Figure 4.2.3-7.

138. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-229, 4-242, 4-361, and 4-363 to 4-364.

139. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-192 to 4-193, and 5-255.

140. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 4-178, 4-182, 4-223, 4-242 to 4-243, 4-363 to 4-364, 5-266, and 5-269.

141. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Table 3.2-1 and pp. 4-177 to 4-178, 4-181 to 4-182, 4-196, 4-242 to 4-243, 4-361, 4-363 to 4-364, 5-255, and 5-265 to 5-269.

142. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. ES-23 to ES-24, 3-65, and 3-72.


144. (15 on DVD) Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Flambeau Mine Site, Craig Roesler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, April 2012, p. 3.

145. (15 on DVD) Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Flambeau Mine Site, Craig Roesler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, April 2012, pp. 3 and 20.

146. (36 on DVD) Drinking Water Contaminants: National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, United States EPA website (copy made February 6, 2015). The EPA has not established

MCLs for all drinking water contaminants, to date. Some of those contaminants, however, have been assigned MCLs by individual states.147

147. (37 on DVD) NR 140.10, Wisconsin Administrative Code, State of Wisconsin website (copy made Sep 14, 2015).

148. (33 on DVD) NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 1 – Mine Site, Version 14, PolyMet, February 27, 2015, Large Table 18.

149. (38 on DVD) Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant); United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-cv-45, Complaint – Document 01, filed January 18, 2011.

150. (39 on DVD) Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant); United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-cv-45, Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgement – Document 137, filed April 13, 2012.

151. (40 on DVD) Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant); United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-cv-45, Decision – Document 256, filed July 24, 2012.

152. (41 on DVD) Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee); United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Appeal No. 12-2969 and 12-3434, Decision – Document 52, filed August 15, 2013.

153. (42 on DVD) Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee); United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Appeal No. 12-2969 and 12-3434, Petition for Rehearing – Document 55, filed August 29, 2013.

154. (43 on DVD) Plaintiffs on the hook for $60,000 in court fees in connection to Flambeau Mine case, Cap Times, Madison, WI, September 10, 2014.

155. (44 on DVD) Source: U.S. EPA 1979-80, as republished in: “Microcontrollers inn recirculating aquaculture systems,” Publication EES-326, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, April 1994.


157. (28 on DVD) NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11, PolyMet, March 2015, Large Tables 10-14.


159. (45 on DVD) Flambeau Mine Permit, January 1991, p. 158.

160. (46 on DVD) Extended comments on NorthMet PFEIS, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Section of Fisheries, Comments 4 and 5, 2015.

161. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 3-7 to 3-162. In particular, please see the “Overview” section on pp. 3-7 to 3-8.

162. (26 on DVD) Complete Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement, NorthMet Project, December 2008, p. 4.1-65



165. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. 5-109 (also see pp. 5-7 to 5-8, and 5-179 to 5-183).

166. (47 on DVD) FMC Permit Plus Conditions, Wisconsin DNR, September 2015.

23













https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/36_epa_groundwaterstds_feb-2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/37_state-of-wisconsin-gw-stds_copy-made-sep-14-2015.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/water-modeling-data-package-vol-1-mine-site-v14-feb2015_sm.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/38_flambeau-cwa-lawsuit_us-dist-crt_complaint_doc-01_jan-18-2011.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/39_flambeau-cwa-lawsuit_us-dist-crt_summary-judgmt_doc-137_april-13-2012.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/40_flambeau-cwa-lawsuit_us-dist-crt_decision_doc-256_jul-24-2012_h.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/41_flambeau-cwa-lawsuit_us-crt-appeals_decision_doc-52_aug-15-2013.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/42_flambeau-cwa-lawsuit_us-crt-appeals_petition_doc-55_aug-29-2013.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/43_plaintiffs-on-the-hook-for-60000-in-court-fees-ct_sep-10-2014.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/44_waterqualitystdsforfishculture.pdf




https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/45_flambeauminepermit_jan-1991.pdf

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/46_nmet_pfeis_extended_comment_transition-plan-eevarts-tfa.pdf






https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/47_fmc-permit-plus-conditions_sep-20151.pdf

167. (48 on DVD) Local Agreement Between Rusk County, the Town of Grant, the City of Ladysmith and Kennecott Explorations (Australia) LTD for Development of the Kennecott Flambeau Mine,

Exhibits D and E, August 1988.

168. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, Figure 3.2-1.

169. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. ES-31, 1-1 to 1-2, and 3-163 to 3-173.

170. (49 on DVD) NorthMet PFEIS, June 2015, p. ES-26; NorthMet FEIS (01 on DVD), November 2015, p. ES- 24.

171. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. A-110.

172. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. A-591.

173. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, p. 5-47 and Figure 5.2.2-9

174. (28 on DVD) NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 – Plant Site, Version 11, PolyMet, March 2015, Large Tables 1, 2 and 10-14.

175. (01 on DVD) NorthMet FEIS, November 2015, pp. 5-65, and A-585 to A-586; Tables 5.2.2-23, 5.2.2-38, and 5.2.2-39.

24

https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/48_local-agreement_flambeau_1988.pdf



https://flambeaumineexposed2.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/polymetpfeis_complete_june-2015_sm.pdf






Appendix A

Sept. 25, 2013

The Honorable Mark Dayton

Governor, State of Minnesota

130 State Capitol

St. Paul, MN 55155

RE: Minnesota Should Say Yes to Copper-Nickel Mineral Development

Dear Governor Dayton:

Anti-mining activists opposed to mineral development in Minnesota are urging you, as the state’s chief

executive, to address four questions before the state approves any proposed copper-nickel mining projects.

These questions are focused on ensuring Minnesota’s water resources are protected, that environmental

safeguards are in place, that proper reclamation of mine sites will occur after mining is completed, and that

taxpayers will be protected from any financial burdens. We agree that these are all good questions — and that

there are fact-based answers that will give you and all the citizens of Minnesota the utmost confidence that

new copper-nickel mining projects can bring unprecedented economic opportunity to Minnesota while

protecting our precious natural environment. In short, can Minnesota enjoy both mining growth and a healthy

environment? The answer is unequivocally YES.

1) Will Minnesota’s water stay safe and clean?

YES, our water will be protected and be kept safe. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the

Federal Environmental Protection Agency have multiple specific water quality standards and regulations.

Companies are required to have controls in place to comply with comprehensive environmental standards —

assuring clean and safe water, air and land.

2) Are there strong safeguards in place for when things go wrong?

YES, safeguards require companies to demonstrate necessary remediation funding. Further, plans are in

place to first prevent pollution and, second, address any potential unforeseen issues. The Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau

of Land Management all require thorough environmental review of potential impacts before permits are

issued. Should unplanned issues arise during operation, the Minnesota DNR and MPCA have authority to

require corrective enforcement actions to remedy the issues. This requires additional financial assurance.

3) Will the company leave the site clean and maintenance free?

YES, state and federal agencies mandate the reclamation of all mining and processing activity, including

mines, tailing basins, waste rock, wetland restoration, re-vegetation of disturbed ground, closure and post

closure maintenance. In addition, strong financial requirements in Minnesota assure responsible clean-up. The

financial assurance must be available to the state at all times and is adjusted annually by the state. Provisions

for post closure maintenance are in place as a tool to eliminate the potential for water quality problems that

have been documented from past mining operations in other states.

4) Will Minnesota’s taxpayers be protected?

YES, taxpayers are financially protected and will not be on the hook for paying for anything that is the

financial responsibility of mining companies. Minnesota requires state-managed and annually adjusted

bankruptcy-proof financial assurance to cover any possible costs before permits can be issued. Minnesota is

authorized to deny or revoke a permit if a company does not comply.

Importantly, Minnesotans will benefit from significant job and economic gains from the state producing its

natural resources. Payroll and sales taxes for Minnesota, net proceed taxes for local governments, and

royalties to the School Trust Fund provide revenue to every school district in Minnesota.

In addition to the four questions, the anti-mining activists continue to claim that no copper-nickel mine has

operated without “polluting” local waters. This simply is not true.

Copper, nickel and other much needed metal production can and has been done safely and successfully,

without polluting local waters. Right next door in Wisconsin, the Flambeau Mine is an excellent example of a

copper mine that operated for several years, and now has been closed and reclaimed for more than ten years

in full compliance with Wisconsin laws.

During both the operation and the closure of the Flambeau Mine, not a single permit condition was violated

and the mine has not impaired local waters. The Wisconsin DNR holds this mine up as an example of a

successful operation and successful closure.

A recent federal Court of Appeals decision, along with the lower court’s praise for the company’s demonstrated

respect of the environment and local community, further affirm that the right company doing the right things in

compliance with the right standards can produce the materials society needs safely and responsibly.

Minnesota should enthusiastically support the development of its own resources by way of mining. We can

have a win, win, win situation. Mine the metals here in Minnesota – do it with Minnesota jobs – and be an

example to the rest of the world for environmentally responsible mining.

Minnesota’s environmental review and permitting process — developed with the input of many stakeholders,

including environmentalists — is comprehensive, open and transparent and invites citizen participation at

many steps along the way. As an industry, we encourage everyone to participate in the process and learn the

facts of each project as it goes through this rigorous review.

Each and every project will be required to demonstrate it will meet or exceed Minnesota’s strict air and water

quality standards in order to receive a permit to mine. If a company demonstrates it will meet these strict

standards, Minnesota should say YES to copper-nickel mining opportunities, and the jobs they bring.

The answer to all the above questions is a resounding, YES.

We will protect our water and keep it safe

Minnesota has strong safeguards in place

Companies are required to leave sites clean

Taxpayers are protected

It has been done before

Thank you for your continued support of mineral development.

Sincerely,

Frank Ongaro

Executive Director

Cc: Minnesota Legislators, Minnesota Congressional Delegation, Minnesota Mining Subcabinet

HAS ANY COPPER-NICKEL MINE OPERATED WITHOUT “POLLUTING” LOCAL WATERS?

YES, copper, nickel and other much needed metal production can and has been done safely and successfully, without polluting local waters.

A great example of this success is next door in Wisconsin. Located near the city of Ladysmith, Wis., the Flambeau Mine operated in the 1990s and has since been closed and reclaimed in full compliance with Wisconsin laws.

FLAMBEAU MINE AT A GLANCE

• The open pit mine produced 181,000 tons of copper, 334 ounces of gold and 3.3 million ounces of silver during operations.

• The Flambeau Mine paid more than $27.7 million dollars in taxes and fees to local and state governments. This amount is in addition to employee salaries and local expenditures for goods and services.

• More than 100,000 people have visited the reclaimed site to hike the nature trails along the Flambeau River and view local wildlife since the site’s reclamation.

Laura

Highlight

Laura

Highlight

Laura

Highlight

PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM DAY 1

Wisconsin’s mining laws, as well as Minnesota’s, are among the strictest in the country and cover every aspect of mining, from exploration to reclamation. Flambeau Mine met these requirements throughout its lifetime.

In fact, not a single permit condition was violated and the mine has not impaired local waters. The Wisconsin DNR holds this mine up as an example of a successful operation and successful closure.

Plans for reclamation were part of the initial permitting process and were approved by state regulators and communities. The reclaimed site is home to:

• More than 10 acres of wetlands.

• Hundreds of species of plants and animals.

• Four miles of hiking trails and five miles of equestrian trails open to the public year round.

• The Flambeau River, which attracts tourists, paddlers and fisherman; protected at every phase of the project, long-term monitoring upstream and downstream proves the river is clean and healthy.

• Clean and healthy groundwater of the same quality as before mining took place.

A recent federal Court of Appeals decision, along with the lower court’s praise for the company’s demonstrated respect of the environment and local community, demonstrate that the right company doing the right things in compliance with the right standards can produce the materials society needs safely and responsibly.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

www.flambeaumine.com

Laura

Highlight

Laura

Highlight

Appendix B

Location of Monitoring Wells and Compliance Boundary at the Flambeau Mine Site

Note: The Flambeau Mine Permit identifies MW-1000, 1002, 1004, 1005 and 1010 as

“Intervention Boundary” wells; MW-1015 is the sole “Compliance Boundary” well.

Source: Report on Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination at the Flambeau Mine,

Dr. David Chambers and Dr. Kendra Zamzow, Center for Science in Public Participation, 2009

230 550

30,000

35,000

40,000 39,000

40,000

42,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

26,000

37,000

39,000

34,000

37,000

41,000

Apr-99 Oct-00 Apr-01 Jul-02 Jan-04 Apr-05 Jul-06 Oct-07 Apr-08 Apr-09 Jun-10 Apr-11 Jun-12 Mar-13 Oct-14

Man

gan

ese

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mcg

/l)

← F

oth

/ F

MC

Pre

dic

tio

n f

or

Po

st-M

ine

Le

vel

Data Source: Flambeau Mine Permit (1991) and Flambeau Mining Company Annual Reports (1999-2014).

Graph created by Laura Gauger of Duluth, MN.

For additional information go to: http://flambeaumineexposed.wordpress.com/

.

← B

ase

line

Est

imat

e

←←Nerve Damage similar to Parkinson’s Disease reported at 14,000 mcg/l →→ →→→→→→→→

Manganese Levels in Monitoring Well-1013B at the Flambeau Mine Site

MW-1013B is located within the backfilled mine pit. It is about 600’ from the Flambeau

River, 86’ deep and in line with the direction of groundwater flow toward the river.

http://flambeaumineexposed.wordpress.com/

50 300 320

1400

2200

3200

5,400

6,200

7,800

8,700

9,100

11,000

10,000

13,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

15,000

Oct99 Jun00 Jul01 Oct02 Oct03 Apr04 Oct05 Oct06 Jun07 Jun08 Apr09 Oct10 Jul11 Feb12 Jun13

Iro

n C

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

cg/l

)

← F

oth

/ F

MC

Pre

dic

tio

n f

or

Po

st-M

ine

Le

vel




← D

rin

kin

g W

ate

r S

tan

dar

d

Iron Levels in Monitoring Well-1013C at the Flambeau Mine Site (MW-1013C is located within the backfilled pit. It is about 600’ from the Flambeau River,

202’ deep, and in line with the direction of groundwater flow toward the river).

←P

re-M

ine

Est

imat

e


11 14

810

520 530

550

690

590

560 560

600 580

550 560

420

520

560

Feb-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Jul-02 Apr-03 Jan-04 Jul-05 Jan-06 Jun-07 Jun-08 Apr-09 Jun-10 Apr-11 May-12 Jun-13

Co

pp

er

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

ug/

l)

← F

oth

/ F

MC

Pre

dic

tio

n f

or

Po

st-M

ine

Le

vel




Copper Levels in Monitoring Well-1014B at the Flambeau Mine Site (MW-1014B is located within the backfilled pit. It is about 2300’ from the Flambeau River,

105’ deep and in line with the direction of groundwater flow toward the river).

← B

asel

ine

Est

imat

e


5 10

250

1900

1700

1600 1600 1600 1600

1700

1600

1700 1700 1700

2400

1600

1700 1700

Oct‐99 Jan‐00 Apr‐01 Apr‐02 Jul‐03 Jul‐04 Jul‐05 Jul‐06 Apr‐07 Oct‐08 Jun‐09 Jan‐10 Jul‐11 Feb‐12Mar‐13

Sulfate Concentration (mg/l)

Data Source: Flambeau Mine Permit (1991) and Flambeau Mining Company Annual Reports (1999‐2013).



← W

ild R

ice Standard (Surface W

ater)

Sulfate Levels in Monitoring Well‐1013B at the Flambeau Mine Site

MW‐1013B is located within the backfilled mine pit. It is about 600´ from the Flambeau River, 86´deep and in line with the direction of groundwater flow toward the river.

← Drinking W

ater Standard (Groundwater)

← B

aselin

e Estim

ate (Groundwater)

110

550

12,000

14,000

12,000

11,000

7,200

5,500

14,000

13,000

15,000

1987 1989-96 1997-2009

Oct-10 Feb-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Feb-12 Oct-12 Mar-13 Mar-14

Man

gan

ese

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

ug/

l)

Data Source: Flambeau Mine Permit (1991) and Flambeau Mining Company Quarterly Groundwater Reports (1999-2014)

Graph created by: Laura Gauger of Duluth, MN


*MW-1000R (16 ft deep) was drilled as a replacement for MW-1000 (19 feet deep) which was destroyed in 1992 (or sometime

thereabouts) as the result of the construction of a concrete barrier wall between the mine pit and Flambeau River. MW-1000R is

located about 120 feet southeast of the original MW-1000 location.

← F

lam

be

au M

ine

Pe

rmit

Sta

nd

ard

← W

ell

dry

← N

o d

ata

rep

ort

ed b

y F

MC

← B

asel

ine

(M

W-1

00

0)

Manganese Levels in Monitoring Well-1000/1000R* (Intervention Boundary Well)

at the Flambeau Mine Site (MW-1000R is located directly between the backfilled mine pit and the Flambeau River. It is about 170´ from the

river, 16´ deep, and in line with the direction of groundwater flow toward the river.)


Appendix C

January 29, 2015

Mr. Philip Fauble

Hydrogeologist

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

101 S. Webster Street – WA/5

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

RE: Flambeau Mining Company

Environmental Monitoring (Fourth Quarter 2014)

Dear Phil:

Enclosed please find copies of the Fourth Quarter 2014 environmental monitoring

groundwater data which include analyses of groundwater collected from wells

surrounding the backfilled pit and pore water from the monitoring wells constructed

in the backfill. The fourth quarter groundwater sampling was completed

October 31, 2014.

Certification is attached and electronic monitoring is enclosed.

Duplicate samples were collected for MW1002G (MW DUP) and MW1014B

(Backfill Dup).

If you have any questions, please contact me at 801-204-2526 or Sharon Kozicki, of

Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC, at 920-496-6737.

Sincerely

Dave Cline

Vice President – Flambeau Mining Company

Enclosures

Flambeau Mining Company 4700 Daybreak Parkway South Jordan, UT 84095 801-204-2526

Fourth Quarter 2014

Environmental Monitoring Results

TAD Exceedances

TAD Readable

Chain of Custody Documents

.csv Excel Data File

Notes: site = site assigned PAL/ES : well = well assigned PAL/ES : NR140 = NR140.1 PAL/ES

Flambeau Mining Company4th Quarter 2014 GW Sampling

01-OCT-14

01-OCT-14Collected:03180License:

855034730FID:

NLS Project:Lab ID: 721026460

230465

EXCEEDANCES:

Backfill - DUPBackfill - DUPBackfill - DUPBackfill - DUPMW-1000PRMW-1000PRMW-1000PRMW-1000PRMW-1000RMW-1000RMW-1004PMW-1004PMW-1005MW-1005MW-1005MW-1005PMW-1005PMW-1005SMW-1005SMW-1005SMW-1010PMW-1013MW-1013MW-1013AMW-1013AMW-1013BMW-1013BMW-1013BMW-1013CMW-1013CMW-1013CMW-1013CMW-1014MW-1014AMW-1014BMW-1014BMW-1014BMW-1014CMW-1014C

Well IDArsenic, dis.Copper, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Copper, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Copper, dis.Manganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Arsenic, dis.Iron, dis.

Parameterug/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lug/Lmg/Lug/Lmg/L

Units1.15201200014006.62.42300200110001600.431101.9164101.5682.54.6230232.92600042001906104100016002613960015001300910510120001400234.9

Result1130601251.156012560125.15601.1560.15601.15601.156060125130601251.156012560125130601251.15

PAL10130030025010.3300250300250.330010.3300.330010.330010.3300300250130030025010.3300250300250130030025010.3

ESNR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140NR140

CommentsACL

Notes: site = site assigned PAL/ES : well = well assigned PAL/ES : NR140 = NR140.1 PAL/ES

Flambeau Mining Company4th Quarter 2014 GW Sampling

01-OCT-14

01-OCT-14Collected:03180License:

855034730FID:

NLS Project:Lab ID: 721026460

230465

EXCEEDANCES:

MW-1014CMW-1014CMW-1015B

Well IDManganese, dis.Sulfate, dis.Iron, dis.

Parameterug/Lmg/Lmg/L

Units16002100.22

Result60125.15

PAL300250.3

ESNR140NR140NR140

CommentsACL

Appendix D

Surface Waters and Sampling Locations at the Flambeau Mine Site

Source: Flambeau Mine Stipulation Monitoring Plan, Flambeau Mining Company, December 2007

6 4

30

47

77

24 22

25

63

81

43

Jun-02

Sep-07

Oct-08

Oct-09

Sep-10

Sep-11

Jun-12

Oct-13

Oct-14

Co

pp

er

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

ug

/l)

← A

cute

To

xici

ty S

tan

dar

d S

et

to

Pro

tect

Fis

h (

Ran

ge 2

- 6

) 2

1*P

rote

ctcP

Spe

cie

s

References: 1Copper Park Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, Flambeau Mining Company, Feb 2013; 2Chapter NR 105,

Wisconsin Administrative Code; 3Surface Water Quality Assessment of the Flambeau Mine Site, Wisconsin DNR, Apr

2012; 4Flambeau Mine Field and Surface Water Results, Wisconsin DNR, July 2011; Flambeau Mining Company technical

reports (2002-2014).


Copper Levels in Stream C at the Flambeau Mine Site

Stream C is a tributary of the Flambeau River that flows across the southeast corner of the Flambeau Mine site. Data shown below was reported by Flambeau Mining Company (FMC) for sampling site SW-C1, immediately

downstream of the mine. According to FMC, SW-C1 is “representative of the water south of Copper Park Lane.”1

← N

o D

ata

Re

po

rte

d b

y F

MC

(2

00

3 -

20

06

)

← C

on

vers

ion

of

Bio

filt

er

to

In

filt

rati

on

Bas

in (

Mar

ch 2

01

2)

← W

isco

nsi

n D

NR

Bas

elin

e E

stim

ate

(R

ange

< 2

- 4

) 3

, 4

← N

o D

ata

Re

po

rted

by

FM

C (

19

98

- 2

00

1)

← C

reat

ion

of

Bio

filt

er

wit

h O

utl

et t

o S

trea

m C

, U

pst

ream

of

SW

-C1

(1

99

8)

Appendix E

ADDRESS: CONTACT INFORMATION: 1321 East 1st Street Tel: 218-724-3004 Duluth, MN 55805 Email: [email protected]

LIFE STATISTICS: Born in 1956 in West Bend, Wisconsin. Lived mostly in Wisconsin until moving to Duluth, Minnesota in

2010.

EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science Degree in Pharmacy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979); licensed to

practice pharmacy in the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

CONNECTION TO THE FLAMBEAU MINE:

• Became interested in following developments at the Flambeau Mine site in 1997, several years after moving to northern Wisconsin. This eventually led to numerous open records requests of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to obtain official documents and environmental monitoring data for the mine;

• Co-authored, with Roscoe Churchill of Ladysmith, Wisconsin, a book about the Flambeau Mine that was published in 2007. It includes, among other things, a detailed analysis of existing mining regulations impacting the project and how water quality at the mine site fared under those regulations. The book is available in many libraries and schools across the Lake Superior region and can also be accessed online.

1

• Manages a website devoted to providing historic and current information about the Flambeau Mine (environmental monitoring reports, process documents, technical reports, court documents, news articles, correspondence, photos, narrative). Go to: https://flambeaumineexposed.wordpress.com/

• Was an official party to two legal actions involving the Flambeau Mine:

• 2007 contested case hearing2 over a request from Flambeau Mining Company (FMC) to obtain a Certificate

of Completion of mine reclamation. As a result of a negotiated agreement between the opposing parties, the company received only partial certification for reclamation of the mine site. To this day, certification standards still have not been met for the remainder of the site.

• 2011-2014 federal court case3 involving surface water pollution of a tributary of the Flambeau River into

which FMC was discharging contaminated runoff from the Flambeau Mine site without a Clean Water Act permit. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found FMC to be in violation of the Clean Water Act on numerous counts. The decision was later overturned on a technicality, however, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7

th Circuit– this despite the fact that the Wisconsin DNR, after completing an

assessment of the polluted tributary, had recommended to the EPA in late 2011 (before the trial) that the stream be added to the agency’s “impaired waters list” due to copper and zinc toxicity linked to the Flam-beau Mine operation.

In its August 2013 ruling, the Court of Appeals did NOT disagree with the lower court’s finding that FMC was discharging pollutants to a water of the United States. This, of course, would have been difficult to justify, given the fact that the tributary is now on the EPA’s impaired waters list. Rather, the court focused on a very narrow issue regarding whether or not FMC could be held accountable for the company’s failure to have the federally-mandated Clean Water Act permit, and they ruled that the mine permit issued by the State of Wisconsin to FMC shielded the company from prosecution under the Clean Water Act (even though the state-issued permit had not placed limitations on the amount of contaminants discharged to the stream).

1. The Buzzards Have Landed! The Real Story of the Flambeau Mine, Roscoe Churchill and Laura (Furtman) Gauger, Deer Tail Press, 2007.

2. In the Matter of the Application of Flambeau Mining Company for Issuance of a Certificate of Completion of Reclamation, Flambeau Mining Company (Petitioner); Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Ojibwe, Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Headwaters Group of Northern Thunder, Rusk County Citizens Action Group, Sierra Club, Al Gedicks and Laura Gauger (Objecting Parties); State of Wisconsin Division of Hearing and Appeals, Case No. IH-07-05, May 2007.

3. Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant); United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 11-cv-45; and Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Center for Biological Diversity and Laura Gauger (Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants) v. Flambeau Mining Company (Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee); United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Appeal No. 12-2969 and 12-3434.

ABOUT LAURA GAUGER October 2015

mailto:[email protected]

https://flambeaumineexposed.wordpress.com/purchase-the-buzzards-have-landed/on-line-e-book-file/

https://flambeaumineexposed.wordpress.com/

Appendix F

Mine Site

Plant Site

Railroad Connection

Dunka Road

ST135

ST37

ST169

LAKE COUNTY

ST. LOUIS COUNTY

OP1

OP1

ab53

SuperiorNationalForest

SuperiorNationalForest

Aurora

Gilbert

Leonidas

McKinley

Tower

Virginia

HoytLakes

Winton

Biwabik

Babbitt

Ely

Eveleth

MountainIron

Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness

Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness

Figure 4Area Municipalities

NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange PFEISMinnesota

June 2015

µ0 3 61.5

Miles

Plant SiteMine SiteTransportation and Utility Corridor

Municipal BoundaryBoundary WatersCanoe Area WildernessNational Forest

Existing RoadExisting Railroad

This document is a working document.This document may change over timeas a result of new information, furtherdeliberation, or other factors not yetknown to the Co-lead Agencies.

Plant Site Mine Site

Northshore Mine

RailroadConnection

ColbyLake

Former LTVSMCProcessing Plant

LTVSMC Area 5

Dunka Road

Wyman Creek

Second Creek

Wetle

gsCr

eek

Ridge Creek

Sprin

g Mine

Creek

Partr

id geR

iver

South Branch Partridge River

Colvi

n Cree

k

Long

nose

Cree

k

Partridge River

Embarrass River

West Pit OutletYelp Creek

Mud L

ake C

reek

First Creek

Trimble Creek

Stubble Creek

Stephens Creek

Unnamed Creek

Figure 3.2-1NorthMet Project Area Surface Rights


June 2015

µ0 1 20.5

Miles

Federal LandsPolyMet Owned/Leased AreaMine SitePlant Site

Colby Lake WaterPipeline CorridorTransportation and Utility CorridorStream/River


!.

!.

!.

!R

!R

!R

!R

!R

!R

!R

West Pit

Central Pit

East Pit


Category 2/3 (will beremoved and reclaimed)

Overburden Storage andLaydown Area (will be

removed and reclaimed)

Ore Surge Pile (will beremoved and reclaimed)

WWTF

b

West Pit Flowpath - atthe property boundary

WWTF Flowpath - atthe property boundary

Ore Surge Pile Flowpath -at the Partridge River

East Pit adn Category 2/3Flowpath - at thePartridge River

Overburden Storage andLaydown Area Flowpath -at the property boundary

Category 4 (will beremoved and reclaimed)

WWTFFlowpath

West PitFlowpath

Ore SurgePile

Flowpath

East PitCategory 2/3

Flowpath

OverburdenStorage and

Laydown AreaFlowpath

Wetle

gs Cr

eek

Partridge River

West Pit Out let

Yelp Creek

South Branch Partridge River

Stubble Creek

SW-004a

SW-003

SW-004

1605

1585

1585

1545

1585

1535

1605

1595

1525

1535

1605

1615

1625

1595

1575

1545

1615

1615

1555

1575 1585

1565

1535

1605

15851595

1545

1575

1565

1555

Figure 5.2.2-7Mine Site Surficial Groundwater Flowpaths


June 2015

µ0 2,000 4,0001,000

Feet

Surficial Aquifer Head Contour (m) at ClosureGroundwater Flowpath

!. Surface Water Evaluation Location!R Groundwater Contacts Surface Water!( Groundwater Evaluation Locations

Extent of Future PolyMet Lands

GroundwaterContainment SystemPermanent StockpilesRemoved andReclaimed StockpileRemoved Stockpile

a Surface Water Flow

Mine SiteHaul RoadMine PitGroundwater FlowDunka RoadStream/River


!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!R!R

kj

2W ExistingTailings Cell

1E/2E Existing andFuture Tailings Cell

North Flowpath - at thenorth property boundaryNorthwest Flowpath -

at the northwestproperty boundary

West Flowpath - at thewest property boundary

TailingsBasin WestFlowpath

Tailings BasinNorthwestFlowpath

TailingsBasin North

Flowpath

Sprin

g Mine

Creek

Second Creek

Longnose Creek

Ridge Creek

Wyma

n Cre

ek

Camp Eight C ree k

Mud Lake Creek

Bear

Cree

k

Trimble Creek

Unnamed Creek

PM-12.2

PM-12.3

PM-12.4

PM-19

PM-13

PM-11

PM-12

MLC-2

MLC-3TC-1

1650

1700

1650

162514

25

1600

1500

17001675

1625

1450

1625

1700

1500 1500

1675

16501450

1550

1450

1500

1675

1625

1825

1525

1425

1550

1675

1800

162516001575

1775

1650

1750

1725

1500

15251550

1575

1600

147514

25

1650

1625

1450

Em

ba

rr a s s R i v e r

04017000

Figure 5.2.2-9Plant Site Surface and Groundwater Flowpaths

and Final Tailings DesignNorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange PFEIS

MinnesotaJune 2015

µ0 0.5 1 1.50.25

Miles

Groundwater Elevation Contours (feet)!. Surface Water Evaluation Locations!R Groundwater Contacts Surface Water

Groundwater Contacts Surface Water!( Groundwater Evaluation Locations

Groundwater FlowpathPlant SiteExisting Tailings BasinApproximate Pond AreaContainment System

kjUSGS Gaging Station(not active)Groundwater FlowStream/RiverExtent of FuturePolyMet Lands


Date post:	06-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times