appendix a - minnesota department of natural...

Appendix A Public Hearing Transcript

October 12, 2006

1

1

2 --------------------------------------------------------

3 ��

4 ��

5

6 Public Comments/Question & Answer Period

7

8 October 12, 2006

9 Biwabik, Minnesota

10 --------------------------------------------------------

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 REPORTED BY CALVIN J. EVERSON, RPR

BRADEN UNDELAND Registered Professional ReportersDULUTH, MN (218)727-4255 / VIRGINIA, MN (218)741-7624

2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2 Project Officials:

3 Scott E. Ek Principal Planner

4 Minnesota DNR

5 Jon K. Ahlness U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

6 John Gleason

7 MN DNR - Lands & Minerals

8 Steve Dewar MN DNR - Lands & Minerals

9 Kelly Henry

10 Short-Elliott-Hendrickson

11 Ann Foss MN MPCA

12 Loren Voigt

13 MN MPCA

14 Jim Walsh MN State Health Department

15 Joe Geis

16 MN DNR - Fisheries

17

18 Audience Members Who Spoke:

19 Dave Sherek Public Utilities Commission

20 City of Biwabik

21 Terry Lowell City Administrator

22 City of Biwabik

23 Marty Halverson Benchmark Engineering

24 Roger Licari

25


3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (After a presentation by Scott Ek, the

3 following proceedings took place. 6:17 p.m.)

4 MR. SCOTT EK: Any comments or questions?

5 MR. DAVID SHEREK: My name is Dave Sherek.

6 I'm with the Biwabik Public Utilities. One question I

7 had is "in-pit stockpiling," what does that mean? I

8 mean, is it that when they finish with the west pit,

9 they are going to fill it up with the east pit's burden

10 or what?

11 MR. SCOTT EK: Well, I suppose, Gus, do you

12 want to --

13 MR. GUS JOSEPHSON: Do you want to tackle

14 that? You're more familiar with that.

15 MR. SCOTT EK: It depends on the phases of the

16 project, and, yes, you have it somewhat right. It

17 depends how they are phasing these pits and where they

18 are digging them out and where they can put the in-pit

19 stockpiling, so, yes. I don't know exactly their mine

20 plan as of yet and the permit to mine, you know, which

21 will come along, but you do -- you have the right idea.

22 It will be pulled out of one pit and put into an area

23 where, you know, it will fit into the next pit or that

24 same pit itself that has already been removed. I don't

25 know if anybody else can help me out on that.


4

1 MR. STEVE DEWAR: Yeah, I could take a stab at

2 it. In-pit stockpiling, that's a preferred reclamation

3 option as far as the DNR and our reclamation rules go.

4 You know, it only makes sense to fill in the pit, plus

5 you might get some benefit from it for it was pointed

6 out littoral zones, fisheries habitat; you could even

7 get wetland replacement credits if the water is shallow

8 enough. It is also economic from the standpoint of the

9 mining company. It's better to -- it's easier and more

10 economic if you put it back in the hole that it came

11 from versus putting it up on land, and just making more

12 disturbance besides that, so --

13 MR. DAVID SHEREK: I've seen it out west in

14 Wyoming where they reclaim it to the same topographical

15 structure as it was when they first started. I don't

16 suppose that's going to completely happen here, but --

17 MR. STEVE DEWAR: Not in the far east, but the

18 most likely scenario is that the west portion of the

19 East Reserve -- the west pit area of the East Reserve

20 will get filled by surface or rock -- mostly rock --

21 probably rock material, waste rock material from the

22 east half of the pit, so that's -- because that happens

23 first. The west half is going to be mined first,

24 stockpiled up on top, and then they are going to go to

25 the east half, and that material could go into the west


5

1 portion, although there is some issues to deal with

2 like fee owner. They have got to deal with the fee

3 owner. The fee owner needs to agree that they could

4 cover up any remaining resources in the pit, so --

5 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Okay.

6 MR. STEVE DEWAR: And that all can be

7 negotiated at a later date. Whether or not that

8 actually happens -- our reclamation rules require an

9 operating plan to be developed the year or so prior to

10 it actually happening, so that all gets negotiated at a

11 later date, probably in around the year nine or ten,

12 maybe earlier if possible, but --

13 MR. DAVID SHEREK: And one other one. You had

14 a picture of the water draining areas, and you have got

15 it draining from the McKinley area and from the Mary

16 Ellen area; nothing showing withdrawal from the Canton

17 area, so I'm assuming one of two things. I'm assuming

18 that you are aware that the water aquifer is going to

19 be receding in the Canton Pit as you draw from the Mary

20 Ellen Pit?

21 MR. SCOTT EK: Correct, correct.

22 MR. DAVID SHEREK: That other part doesn't

23 matter.

24 MR. SCOTT EK: That's -- we are aware of that,

25 and we -- that's an expected -- that's going to be


6

1 expected. And that's where the contingency plan comes

2 in, the thresholds and so on and so forth, because we

3 do expect that to happen.

4 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Okay. I just wanted to

5 make sure --

6 MR. SCOTT EK: It is very similar to the

7 Laurentian. However, there is a chance it could not

8 happen, but we -- we do -- we do expect that, and to

9 have a contingency plan in place just helps --


11 MR. SCOTT EK: -- to make sure that there is

12 not a problem in the future and we can catch it before

13 it gets serious, so --

14 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Hopefully.

15 MR. SCOTT EK: Yeah.

16 MR. TERRY LOWELL: My name is Terry Lowell.

17 I'm the City Administrator for the City of Biwabik, and

18 let me get back to a comment you just made about water

19 levels and the fact that when the dewatering occurs, it

20 is expected to impact some of the city's water supply

21 or the pit where the city's water supply is coming

22 from, if that's what I heard you say?

23 MR. SCOTT EK: Yes. In the EIS, we do believe

24 that the water levels in the Canton Pit will -- will

25 drop, and that does -- that does not necessarily mean


7

1 the quality of the water will drop. We do know,

2 however, hydrologically that the potential is there for

3 elevations to drop in the Canton due to dewatering.

4 MR. TERRY LOWELL: If that's the case, could I

5 ask you to -- if you'd look at page 80 on your EIS, the

6 statement is made that -- under the paragraph of

7 proposed action to the City of Biwabik, it says that,

8 "The 1,197 feet of amsl water level is a worst-case

9 scenario, and the Groundwater Study indicates that it

10 is highly unlikely that dewatering in the East Reserve

11 Mine would cause drawdown in the adjacent pits to this

12 elevation because of hydraulic resistance of the rock

13 that separates the pits." That seems to run counter to

14 what you just said or did I misread this?

15 MR. JIM WALSH: I'll take a crack at that,

16 Terry. Jim Walsh from the health department. The 1197

17 elevation would be the lowest elevation of the mining

18 at the East Reserve. The current water level in the

19 Canton is considerably higher than that. What this

20 document is saying is they expect the water level to

21 drop, but not to drop below the base elevation of the

22 East Reserve operation. They will have a dewatering

23 sump there at 1197, but the Canton Pit isn't going to

24 drop below that. That would be the lowest the water

25 level would go.


8

1 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I understand, but I'm not

2 sure that the choice of verbiage here says that. It

3 says, "The 1,197 feet water level is the worst-case

4 scenario. The Groundwater Study indicates that it is

5 highly unlikely that the dewatering in the East Reserve

6 Mine will cause drawdown in the adjacent pits to this

7 elevation." You just described what is below that

8 elevation. I agree it won't take it below that

9 elevation, but I think it will draw down to -- will

10 draw down to this elevation.

11 MR. JIM WALSH: I think there is a chance that

12 it might. It certainly won't go below it. If there is

13 a tunnel -- an addit that connects the Canton to the

14 East Reserve, then you are going to get direct

15 equilibration of those water levels, it would be the

16 same pretty much, but if there is solid rock and it

17 doesn't have addits or tunnels going through, you might

18 be a little bit -- the Canton might end up a little bit

19 above the East Reserve. But at worst, it would end up

20 at the same elevation.

21 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I understand. It is just a

22 little scary when it says highly unlikely when it

23 probably is more likely.

24 MR. SCOTT EK: Well, it was a conservative

25 approach, so we go ahead and take the most conservative


9

1 approach, and so we do say it is a possibility;

2 however, unlikely. But as Jim said, due to underground

3 mining in the area in the past, and we are not sure

4 where, if and how it is connected, that could have an

5 impact, and that's an unknown. So what it essentially

6 says is we see it not dropping below 1197 because that

7 will be the elevation in the East Reserve, so that's

8 the lowest that it could drop.

9 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I hear what you're saying,

10 but I'm reading something entirely different here.

11 MS. ANN FOSS: If you think it is unclear, you

12 should probably submit that as a comment, and that's

13 something --

14 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Oh, I will provide it in

15 writing, but I also thought this was being --

16 MS. ANN FOSS: Yeah, it is. It is.

17 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I have lots of questions,

18 but if there is other people with questions, please

19 interrupt me.

20 MR. SCOTT EK: No, I think the rest are agency

21 folk.

22 MR. TERRY LOWELL: On one of your slides, you

23 indicated the list of required permits and approvals,

24 and at the bottom you had a bullet that identified the

25 contingency plan agreement with the towns of Biwabik


10

1 and McKinley, but I think you said that you had

2 included that as a piece of information, yet the

3 permits above it, if I understand your comments, were

4 that they would not be issued until all of the -- these

5 permits are issued currently, and that they all have to

6 be in place before operations can begin, am I

7 understanding that correctly?

8 MR. SCOTT EK: Yeah, they cannot be issued

9 until this EIS, and that's the final EIS, and Record of

10 Decision and adequacy has been determined both on the

11 Corps and the state side. I added that this

12 exclusively -- it would be a part of the water

13 appropriations permit, but I added that exclusively

14 just under there just to let -- because I know that was

15 an important topic, and I wanted people to know that it

16 has been highly considered in this draft EIS.

17 MR. TERRY LOWELL: And the third comment that

18 you made, I just want to verify it and confirm it, you

19 said that -- under the municipal water supply slide, it

20 said that Mittal would be financially responsible for

21 changes listed in the contingency plan. Did I hear you

22 say that under state law that is a requirement that if

23 they do impact the municipal water system, they will be

24 required to mitigate that impact?

25 MR. SCOTT EK: Yes, it's -- you cannot impact


11

1 a municipal water supply at any project. You can't

2 deny a community of water, so, yes, Mittal would have

3 to either find a different source, put in new pumps,

4 there is many different options, but that would be part

5 of the contingency plan.

6 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Can I keep going? Under

7 attachment one, the very first -- kind of the first

8 page of your document in the EIS, it talks about -- and

9 I'm just raising this for clarification. It talks

10 about power for the East Reserve project will be

11 provided by Minnesota Power.

12 MR. SCOTT EK: Uh-huh.

13 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Some of that mine operation

14 is in the City of Biwabik's electric service area, just

15 so that you're aware of that. Minnesota Power cannot

16 provide you power in our service area.

17 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Without paying.

18 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Just so you're aware.

19 MR. SCOTT EK: I think that would be -- could

20 you put that in a comment?

21 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Oh, yes, everything I say

22 here I will put in a comment.

23 MR. SCOTT EK: Okay. I would appreciate that.

24 That's something -- yeah. And we have it down here

25 transcribed, but a comment would be greatly appreciated


12

1 on that one.

2 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Terry, can I get a word in?

3 Can I get one word in?

4 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Oh, sure.

5 MR. DAVID SHEREK: Dave Sherek again with the

6 Biwabik Public Utilities. Talking about what Terry was

7 just saying, the contingency plan, I would like to see

8 a definitive time line. I am on the Public Utilities

9 Commission, and I'm scared to death of this thing,

10 because in seven years the water may be coming down,

11 and maybe in the next seven years something will

12 happen, and I want to see a definitive time line to

13 make sure that when something is -- when something is

14 observed, that there is a plan that can jump right in

15 and start working on making sure that that water is --

16 the quality and the quantity are there for us, because

17 we are expecting and we are experiencing growth.

18 MR. SCOTT EK: Right.

19 MR. DAVID SHEREK: And if we go to that level

20 that you guys were talking about in the Canton, that's

21 not going to take care of us no matter what.

22 MR. SCOTT EK: Well, no, you will -- it will

23 start right away. That's part of the contingency plan,

24 which is part of the water appropriations permit which

25 comes out of this draft EIS. So in order for Ispat to


13

1 even begin their dewatering, they need a water

2 appropriations permit. This contingency plan is part

3 of that water appropriations permit, so it will already

4 be in place. There is no seven years down the line;

5 there is no this. And the contingency plan I believe

6 is going to be worked out and has been with Mittal, the

7 DNR, and the City of Biwabik, and the needs that need

8 to be met, you know, can be discussed between the three

9 groups and make sure that they are included.

10 MR. DAVID SHEREK: I just need that guaranteed

11 just, you know --

12 MR. SCOTT EK: Oh, it is guaranteed.

13 MR. DAVID SHEREK: I was with the guys when we

14 went down to the pit, and we watched, and we said where

15 we would be moving the raft and all that, and I've got

16 a responsibility to the citizens.

17 MR. SCOTT EK: No, it is already decided,

18 there will be a contingency plan, and Mittal can't

19 start their project unless they have a water

20 appropriations permit, so --

21 MR. GUS JOSEPHSON: Part of the contingency

22 plan is we were committed to installing data loggers,

23 which will tell us the actual level. It will actually

24 have loggers that we can see when it starts going down.

25 Our intention is we will work with the city and your


14

1 engineer or engineering firm to come up with a response

2 when it gets to a certain level based on your past

3 experience, like you said, with your water people, and

4 it will be an immediate response. We are not going to

5 wait until you're impacted. It will be right -- like

6 Scott said, it is part of the water appropriations

7 permit, which is an enforceable law and rule we have to

8 comply with, like we did in the City of McKinley.

9 MR. SCOTT EK: Yeah. And from my experience,

10 as soon as the City of McKinley found that there was a

11 problem, Mittal was right there on the spot fixing that

12 problem, and that's just from past experience. And so

13 I can say they are not going to back down or shy away

14 from what I've seen personally.

15 Just to let you know what a data logger is, if

16 you don't know, it is essentially -- it will tell you a

17 constant -- however you set it, it will give you either

18 daily ranges of water elevations or you can even have

19 up to the minute ranges of water elevations, and they

20 are pulled up temporarily and downloaded into a

21 computer. So it is a constant -- it is a constant --

22 you can make a graph showing exactly what is happening

23 in time, so that's a very good idea.


25 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Back to me. Terry Lowell


15

1 again, City of Biwabik City Administrator. Again, I

2 appreciate the fact that Mittal Steel has made that

3 commitment to the city to ensure that they have the

4 adequate water supply and quality and quantity, and so

5 please don't take any of these questions or whatever

6 wrong. We just -- we do have a responsibility to our

7 citizens to protect that water supply, and that's what

8 leads to some of these questions.

9 On page S-8, I think, of your executive

10 summary, there is a conclusion there that -- and,

11 again, I will put this in writing -- I don't think is

12 an accurate conclusion. It is under the "Municipal

13 Water Supply" again, and it says, "However, even at

14 that level, there would be a sufficient volume

15 available to meet the needs of the city." That would

16 assume that if they went down that 1100 and some foot

17 elevation. I think we have to add that it shows that

18 that would not be adequate, and we could provide

19 that -- include that as an example or exhibit with our

20 written comments. But my only fear is that if we start

21 talking about conclusions, that we may not have good

22 scientific data or evidence to draw that conclusion;

23 and in this particular case, I think we have provided

24 evidence that reaches a different conclusion, and you

25 may have other evidence that reaches this conclusion.


16

1 I'm just concerned that the conclusion that is reached

2 may not be accurate, but I will put that in writing,

3 and you can take it under advisement and consideration.

4 MR. SCOTT EK: To be honest with you, I can't

5 answer that question myself. Is there anyone --

6 MR. TERRY LOWELL: You can answer it maybe --

7 I may not be looking for an answer. I just wanted to

8 make a comment.

9 MR. SCOTT EK: The thing is with the hydrology

10 and so forth and with the underground workings we don't

11 know about and interconnectivity with these different

12 pits, it is really -- it is difficult to make -- to

13 make an exact determination of what might happen and

14 how far it may drop, and it is a complicated issue, and

15 that is the reason for the contingency. Adequate

16 water, when they say it drops to a certain level, they

17 look at the volume, and then they compare that volume

18 to your water usage at this time. However, if you in

19 the future are intending to require more water, well,

20 you know, that's a different story. But at this time,

21 your water -- I guess your water usage and that volume

22 of water in the Canton would still be adequate to

23 supply the City of Biwabik is what the draft EIS

24 concludes, if I'm --

25 MR. MARTY HALVERSON: I'm Marty Halverson,


17

1 Benchmark Engineering. I work with the City of Biwabik

2 on their engineering projects, and I've worked on this

3 project, and I have the same concerns as Terry over

4 some of the conclusions and statements in the water

5 study, especially what you just alluded to and stated

6 that that's an adequate water supply of that volume.

7 We disagree with that. What you're saying is you are

8 going to pump about something like 98 percent of the

9 water out, and to say that that's still a viable water

10 supply I think is an inappropriate conclusion in the

11 EIS draft.

12 MR. SCOTT EK: Okay.

13 MR. MARTY HALVERSON: And also we have some

14 concerns over the levels predicted as well and what

15 becomes an appropriate level. We will put these

16 comments in writing.

17 MR. SCOTT EK: That would be great. That

18 would be great. That's what we were looking for.

19 MR. MARTY HALVERSON: One more. Just out of

20 curiosity, you mentioned MnDOT projects and wetlands

21 and impacts. I was just curious what those MnDOT

22 projects are that are related to this project?

23 MR. SCOTT EK: I don't have that information

24 here with me, but --

25 MR. MARTY HALVERSON: I didn't realize that


18

1 there was some highway work that was --

2 MR. SCOTT EK: They are future projects.

3 Kelly, would you know offhand --

4 MS. KELLY HENRY: I think it says in the

5 cumulative impact study, but I would have to look up

6 what the specific --

7 MR. ROGER LICARI: One more question, please.

8 I didn't hear any talk -- Roger Licari, City of

9 Biwabik. I didn't hear any question about what is

10 going to happen with the road, you know, that goes

11 between right out of town here and referred to as

12 Whiskey Road or whatever it is. Are they going to

13 reroute that road?

14 MR. SCOTT EK: In the EIS, all we are doing is

15 describing the process that the county itself would

16 take and what they would need to do and the City of

17 Biwabik to reroute that road if -- if and when that

18 happens, and it is my understanding that it more than

19 likely will happen, and I don't believe it will be a

20 reroute.

21 MR. ROGER LICARI: It won't be?

22 MR. SCOTT EK: No. Because you're coming so

23 close to the Canton Pit, there would be -- there would

24 be no possibility to, you know, reroute between the two

25 pits, the east -- the west -- or the east East Reserve


19

1 pit and the Canton Pit, so -- however, that's not part

2 of this EIS impact. We just described what the county

3 process would be.

4 MR. TERRY LOWELL: Again, Terry Lowell with

5 the City of Biwabik. You had kind of touched on the

6 situation that if the City of Biwabik were to grow and

7 have additional demands for water, that that would not

8 be an impact that would have to be addressed -- or the

9 mining operation would not have to address that growth.

10 I guess I would ask it to be considered the same as the

11 MnDOT's issue related to future highway development.

12 If they are going to address impacts on future highway

13 development, I think that should also be addressed on

14 future impacts on growth related to the water

15 development. So that maybe is a philosophical question

16 and one for future discussion, but I think it is

17 important to get into the record that it is also an

18 item that I think needs to be discussed mainly as part

19 of that mitigation plan with Mittal and the City of

20 Biwabik, but it will be an issue that we raise.

21 MR. SCOTT EK: The wetlands is -- they call it

22 a cumulative impact, and so what Mittal and the DNR had

23 to do is take a geographical boundary, which is the

24 Pike River watershed and I forget the name of the other

25 watershed, but look at what wetlands are going to be


20

1 impacted past, current and future, those 22 wetlands

2 and future impacts. From --

3 MR. JON AHLNESS: Scott, -- this is Jon

4 Ahlness from the Corps of Engineers. That would be

5 reasonably foreseeable future actions, so those would

6 be -- I assume, Kelly, that those are plans or verbiage

7 that are on the books or we know what those impacts

8 would be?

9 MS. KELLY HENRY: They are impacts that were

10 estimated by the transportation department for their

11 foreseeable future work.

12 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I didn't --

13 MS. KELLY HENRY: For the foreseeable future

14 work, for the foreseeable future projects.

15 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I would tell you that the

16 City of Biwabik had the very same situation when we had

17 a development east of town, 224 residential units that

18 are already planned and some of them are already being

19 constructed, so I would say that would fit right into

20 the same criteria that you use, and we would want to

21 apply the same criteria.

22 MR. SCOTT EK: Well, I think it would actually

23 be a cumulative impact you're imposing on your water

24 source, if I would be correct. If this is not in -- is

25 this in the books? Is this ready to go? Are they


21

1 breaking ground at this point?

2 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I'm just advocating for the

3 same considerations on future plans they made --

4 MR. SCOTT EK: Well, future. How far in the

5 future? Because this draft EIS cannot -- does not, I

6 guess, recognize future plans of cities at this point.

7 MR. TERRY LOWELL: That's my point. It does

8 it for the DNR -- or for the highway department, but it

9 doesn't do it for the city; that's my point.

10 MR. SCOTT EK: No, it is for wetlands,

11 actually.

12 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I thought it was highway

13 department.

14 MR. SCOTT EK: No, no. The highway department

15 just happens to be the agency that are impacting those

16 wetlands.

17 MS. KELLY HENRY: The City of Biwabik was also

18 contacted when this cumulative impact study was done to

19 identify their future projects, too.

20 MR. TERRY LOWELL: And I know that we also

21 will comment that we have future plans of a development

22 going on on the east side of Biwabik, and we will

23 include that in our statement, and my comment is not

24 addressed in here, and I will -- I'll put it in my

25 written comments, and you may choose to do whatever you


22

1 want to with it, but I want to take the opportunity to

2 say it vocally here and also then I'll put it in

3 writing and then you can consider it as you will.

4 MR. SCOTT EK: You know, Terry, I appreciate

5 you putting it in writing, but, however, it was not a

6 comment during the scoping period. Now, I presume we

7 would have discussed that, so if you want -- if you

8 would like to put it in writing now --

9 MR. TERRY LOWELL: I will.

10 MR. SCOTT EK: -- as a comment, that would be

11 appreciated.

12 Any other questions?

13 (No response.)

14 All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you for

15 coming.

16 (Whereupon, proceedings concluded at 7:47 p.m.)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


appendix a - minnesota department of natural...

Documents