Final Scoping Decision...

Appendix C Final Scoping Decision Document

and Responses to EIS Scoping Comments and USACE Wetland Cumulative Impacts Work Scope

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010

Date: August 24, 2005 To: Parties on the EIS Distribution List Other Interested Parties From: Scott Ek

Principal Planner Environmental Policy and Review

RE: Ispat Inland Mining, East Reserve Project Environmental Impact Statement Final Scoping Decision Document Enclosed please find the Final Scoping Decision Document the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has developed for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the proposed Ispat Inland, East Reserve project. The Final Scoping Decision Document serves as the “blueprint” for EIS preparation. It reflects consideration of the full scoping record, including comments received on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (Scoping EAW) and the Draft Scoping Decision Document. The DNR will now proceed to conduct the EIS. The Draft EIS is expected to be released in spring 2006.

Please direct any questions that you may have to me at (651) 296-8396. Sincerely,

Scott E. Ek Enclosures: Final Scoping Decision Document

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929

An Equal Opportunity Employer

FINAL SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT Ispat Inland Mining, East Reserve Project

Environmental Impact Statement 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the East Reserve project proposed by Ispat Inland Mining (Ispat Inland) of Virginia, Minnesota. The EIS will allow evaluation of the East Reserve project in accordance with the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) MN Stat. Ch. 116D.

Ispat Inland Mining proposes to open the East Reserve; a new open-pit mine area located between the towns of Biwabik and McKinley. Opening the East Reserve would extend the life of Ispat Inland’s existing Minorca ore processing facility through the year 2024. The existing Minorca facility is fully permitted and no additional impacts will result from the development of the East Reserve.

An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is mandatory for this project pursuant to MN Rules. Ch. 4410.4300, Subp. 11 that identifies expansions of stockpiles, tailings basins and mine sites by 320 acres or more. The DNR and Ispat Inland have agreed that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects and that an EIS should be prepared pursuant to MN Rules. Ch. 4410.2000, Subp. 3.

The EIS will meet applicable requirements of MN Rules. Ch. 4410.0200 to 4410.7800 (Minnesota Environmental Quality Board [MEQB] Rules) which govern the Minnesota Environmental Review Program. The DNR is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) under MEPA. The DNR will engage the services of a consultant to assist in EIS preparation, however the DNR will retain responsibility for EIS content.

The Scoping Decision Document is a companion to the Scoping EAW prepared for the project. The purpose of the Scoping Decision Document is to identify those project alternatives and environmental impact issues that will be addressed in the EIS. The Scoping Decision Document also presents a tentative schedule of the environmental review process.

2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The MEQB rules require that an EIS include at least one alternative of each of the following types, or provide an explanation of why no alternative is included in the EIS (Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, page 12): alternative sites, alternative technologies, modified designs or layouts, modified scale or magnitude, and alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through comments received during the EIS scoping and draft EIS comment periods.

Minnesota Rules. Ch. 4410.2300, Subp. G directs that an alternative may be excluded for the analysis in the EIS if “it would not meet the underlying need for or purpose of the project, it would likely not have any significant environmental benefit compared to the project as proposed, or another alternative, of any type, that will be analyzed in the EIS would likely have similar environmental benefits but substantially less adverse economic, employment, or sociological impacts.” Selection or dismissal of alternatives will be documented in the EIS. 2.1 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE

The EIS will describe the proposed project and the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects outlined in Section 3.0.

Ispat Inland Mining, East Reserve Project Page 1 of 6 Final Scoping Decision Document 08/24/05

2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The EIS will describe the expected condition if the proposed project is not developed, with respect to the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects outlined in Section 3.0.

2.3 SITE ALTERNATIVES

The DNR does not propose to evaluate alternative mine pit or processing plant sites for this project. The mineralization of the desired elements within a geologic deposit dictates the location of the mine. There is an alternative mine pit location within the same geologic deposit that has been identified by Ispat Inland as the Central Pit. The location of the ore for the Central Pit is directly beneath the City of McKinley. This alternative would not have significant environmental benefits over the proposed action and it would likely result in more adverse sociological and economic impacts.

2.4 TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES

The DNR does not propose to evaluate alternative technologies. The location of the ore deposit is such that it is not suitable for underground mining and thus would not meet the underlying purpose and need for the project. No alternative open pit mining technologies exist that would provide the same combination of economic efficiency and minimized environmental effects.

2.5 MODIFIED DESIGNS OR LAYOUTS

The EIS will evaluate modified design or layout alternatives to the proposed East Reserve project. The specific alternatives include in-pit stockpiling and dewatering routes.

2.5.1 In-pit stockpiling

The DNR proposes that the feasibility of stockpiling lean ore, waste rock, and surface overburden in the mined-out pit be evaluated. Backfilled portions of the mine pit could be reclaimed as shallow water habitats for aquatic resources and potential mitigation for other project impacts.

2.5.2 Dewatering routes

The DNR proposes to evaluate three alternative mine pit dewatering routes identified in the EAW that would deliver water from the mine pits to the Embarrass River. The impacts and benefits of each route will be evaluated in the EIS.

2.6 SCALE OR MAGNITUDE ALTERNATIVES

The DNR does not propose to evaluate alternative scale or magnitude of the project. The location and orientation of the East Reserve deposit combined with the infrastructure requirements to mine and process the ore are such that alternative scale/magnitude would likely not have significant environmental benefits compared to the proposed project.

2.7 INCORPORATION OF MITITGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED THROUGH PUBLIC

COMMENTS

The MEQB rules require consideration of mitigation measures identified through comments on the scope or the draft EIS, informally called the “fully mitigated alternative.” The EIS will consider the mitigations suggested through public comment, and will recommend incorporation of reasonable mitigation measures into project design and permitting.


3.0 EIS ISSUES

The purpose of scoping is “to streamline the document, to identify only potentially significant and relevant issues and to define alternatives,” (MEQB Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules, page 10). Issues have been identified and described in the Scoping EAW and are categorized below by significance and amount of additional analysis required in the EIS. Mitigation measures that could reasonably be applied to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental effects will be identified in the EIS in both the section describing environmental effects and in a separate chapter for permitting reference.

3.1 The topic is not relevant or so minor that it will not be addressed in the EIS. The Scoping EAW

will be appended to the EIS for reference; the relevant EAW number is provided in parentheses () after each topic.

Land Use (Item 9) Cover Types (Item 10) Water-Related Land Use Management Districts (Item 14) Water Surface Use (Item 15) Traffic (Item 21) Vehicle-Related Air Emissions (Item 22) Stationary Source Air Emissions (Item 23) Nearby Resources (Item 25) Visual Impacts (Item 26) Compatibility with Plans and Land Use Regulations (Item 27)

3.2 Significant impacts are not expected; topic will be discussed briefly in the EIS using the same

information as in the EAW. Geologic Hazards and Soil Conditions (Item 19)

3.3 Significant impacts are not expected but information beyond that in the Scoping EAW will be included in the EIS.

3.3.1 Erosion and Sedimentation (Item 16)

The EIS will evaluate increased erosion, turbidity ,and levels of suspended solids with respect to the larger issue of surface water and storm water runoff and the potential impact to surface water and down stream water quality. The EIS will include the preparation of a construction storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

The EIS will evaluate the potential for increased sedimentation into the Canton Pit due to decreased water levels from mine pit dewatering and the possible effects it will have on the water quality.

3.3.2 Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks (Item 20)

The EIS will include additional data/information on materials handling balances as they pertain to waste stockpiling, including stockpile heights and footprints.

3.3.3 Odors, Noise, and Dust (Item 24)

The treatment of noise and dust in the Laurentian EIS will be reviewed with consideration of applicability to the proposed East Reserve mine pit. If the analyses are suitable they will be referenced in the East Reserve EIS. The EIS will include any additional analysis due to differences in receptors at the East Reserve mine pit.


3.3.4 Impact on Infrastructure and Public Services (Item 28)

The EIS will describe the process the County and fee holders will go through to realign County Road 715.

The EIS will address potential impacts to the Canton and Corsica Pits resulting from the East Reserve mining activity. The EIS will include thresholds, contingencies, and mitigation to ensure the water supplies for the cities of Biwabik and McKinley will not be interrupted and will remain clean and adequate.

3.3.5 Other Potential Environmental Impacts (Item 30)

The EIS will evaluate stockpile designs and potential use of in-pit stockpiling to create shallow lake zones for aquatic habitat. The EIS will also address post-mining watershed hydrology with respect to decreased flows to water courses when dewatering ends and the pits are filling. The post-mining deactivation and reclamation process will be discussed in the EIS.

3.4 Potentially significant impacts may result; information beyond what was in the EAW will be

included in the EIS. 3.4.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources (Item 11)

The EIS will include a quantitative assessment of fish and wildlife species present in the project area and describe potential impacts from the project. The EIS will discuss mitigation as warranted.

The project site will be surveyed for the presence of endangered, threatened, special concern and tracked species. The EIS will include the results of the search, discuss potential impacts to any listed species identified, and suggest mitigation, if warranted.

3.4.2 Physical Impacts on Water Resources (Item 12)

The proposed project has the potential to significantly affect surface water resources in the project area. The EIS will include a study of the surface water hydrology of the affected area, potential changes to surface water hydrology, and possible methods for mitigating such changes. Included in the EIS will be an analysis of receiving stream geomorphology. This information combined with the results of the surface water study will be used to identify any areas that are sensitive to changes in magnitude, duration, rate, and time of flow. If any sensitive areas are identified, there will be additional investigation of these areas. If this additional investigation identifies any significant adverse impacts from the project, mitigation and monitoring will be evaluated.

The EIS will include additional detail on the wetland delineation and mitigation. Potential indirect impacts to wetlands due to changes in hydrology will also be evaluated.

The EIS will describe watershed landscape alterations and mine pit dewatering discharges. Potentially affected water bodies will be identified and predictions will be made as to the extent of impacts. The EIS will identify and evaluate mitigation measures to the identified impacts.


3.4.3 Water Use (Item 13)

The proposed surface water and groundwater studies will be used to identify impacts from changes in hydrology caused by the project. Specifically, the potential effects the dewatering will have on the groundwater resource and water levels in the Canton and Corsica pits (Biwabik’s and McKinley’s water supplies, respectively). The EIS will evaluate the current water quality data in the pits to determine a baseline condition against which potential future impacts can be compared. The EIS will determine thresholds as they apply to pit water levels and water quality and alternative methods/engineering that may be required to ensure a continued high-quality drinking water supply. The EIS will discuss mitigation/contingency plans and infrastructure changes including economic considerations associated with maintaining an adequate drinking water supply.

3.4.4 Water Quality: Surface Water Runoff (Item 17)

The EIS will evaluate long-term storm water management issues associated with the continued operation of the mine and will include a SWPPP. The individual NPDES permit for the mine dewatering discharges will be evaluated for the management of storm water generated during the course of normal mine operation and will be included in the EIS.

3.4.5 Water Quality: Wastewaters (Item 18)

The EIS will address mercury discharges from active pit dewatering. Ispat Inland currently proposes to meet the 1.3 ng/L standard for mercury discharges into the Lake Superior watershed. The EIS will include a detailed feasibility analysis of meeting this standard including information and impacts related to a potential variance from the standard.

The proposed project has the potential to significantly affect surface and groundwater resources in the project area. The EIS will include a detailed description of the rates, volumes, and timing of dewatering based on the final mine plan. In addition, the EIS will evaluate alternative downstream drainage systems from the mine site including the capacity of the downstream conveyance systems to handle additional discharge and improvements to minimize potential problems both physical and biological. An assessment of potential fluvial geomorphic changes, including sedimentation and stream bank erosion will be thoroughly evaluated as part of the EIS. The EIS will include a surface water and groundwater study to identify potential impacts from changes in hydrology caused by the project.

3.4.6 Cumulative Impacts (Item 29)

The EIS will address cumulative impacts to wildlife habitat with regards to habitat loss/fragmentation and travel corridor obstruction/landscape barriers. The EIS will also address the cumulative impacts associated with increased water flow/volume and quality in unnamed streams and the Embarrass River. Cumulative impacts analysis will address the combined effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions with regards to these resources.

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF PHASED OR CONNECTED ACTIONS

The Central Reserve located beneath the town of McKinley is considered the next development phase for future mining by Ispat Inland. A separate environmental assessment will be conducted when appropriate.


5.0 EIS SCHEDULE (TENTATIVE)

July 2005 Scoping EAW comment period/public meeting August 2005 Final Scoping Decision Document October 2005 EIS Preparation Notice Published March 2006 Draft EIS issued for public review/public meeting June 2006 Final EIS Issued July 2006 EIS Adequacy Determined

6.0 SPECIAL STUDIES OR RESEARCH

Groundwater Study A groundwater study will be conducted to determine the potential for impact. The study area will include pits and lakes surrounding the East Reserve site and potential dewatering discharge routes including, but not limited to: the Canton Pit, McKinley Lake, Mud Lake, discharge routes from the McKinley and Mary Ellen Pits and Mud Lake, along with the surrounding Quaternary aquifer and Biwabik Formation aquifer. The following general potential groundwater issues (related to mine pit dewatering) will be addressed in the proposed study:

Potential for interface with Biwabik and McKinley water supplies; Potential for altering groundwater flow paths at nearby, known contaminated sites; The presence of residential water supply wells in the area of dewatering influence and the

potential for impacts to those water supplies; and Potential for impacts to residential and commercial water supply water quality.

Surface Water Study A surface water study will be conducted to determine the potential for impact. The study will include the drainage network extending down stream from the McKinley Pit to the Embarrass River, the drainage network extending from the Mary Ellen Pit to the Embarrass River, and the drainage system downstream of Mud Lake. The following potential surface water issues will be addressed in the proposed study:

Potential for overbank flooding, flooding due to icing conditions and capacity at road crossings

and other structures; Potential for stream bank erosion and changes in stream geomorphology; Potential for changes to water quality; and Potential for changes to downstream wetlands.

7.0 GOVERNMENTAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS

The EIS will identify all permits and approvals required for this project. While some permit application review may occur concurrently with EIS preparation, the EIS will not necessarily contain all information required for a decision on those permits. No permits have been designated to have all information developed concurrently with the preparation of the EIS nor will any require preparation of a record of decision pursuant to MN Rules. Ch. 4410.2100, Subp. 6D.


Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010

Date: August 25, 2005 To: Parties on the EIS Distribution List Other Interested Parties From: Scott Ek

Principal Planner Environmental Policy and Review

RE: Ispat Inland Mining, East Reserve Project Supplemental Information to the Final Scoping Decision Document Enclosed please find supplemental information to the Final Scoping Decision Document (sent August 24, 2005) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for the proposed Ispat Inland, East Reserve project.

Please direct any questions that you may have to me at (651) 296-8396. Sincerely,

Scott E. Ek Enclosures: EIS Scoping Procedures Responses to EIS Scoping Comments Comment Letters

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 • 1-888-646-6367 • TTY: 651-296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929

An Equal Opportunity Employer

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

EIS SCOPING PROCEDURES

Ispat Inland, East Reserve Project St. Louis County, Minnesota

1. Ispat Inland Mining proposes to open the East Reserve; a new open-pit mine area

located between the towns of Biwabik and McKinley. Opening the East Reserve would extend the life of Ispat Inland’s existing Minorca ore processing facility through the year 2024.

2. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the designated Responsible

Government Unit (RGU) for expansion of a stockpile, tailings basin, or mine by 320 or more acres according to MN Rules Ch. 4410.4300, Subpart 11.

3. As required by MN Rules Ch. 4410.4300, Subpart 11, the project required preparation of

a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) with DNR as the designated RGU.

4. In that similar past projects undergoing State Environmental Review were subject to

controversy, Ispat Inland Mining (hereinafter “the Proposer”) volunteered to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under MN Rules Ch. 4410.2000, Subpart 3B.

5. As required by MN Rules Ch. 4410.2000, Subpart 3B, the DNR will prepare an EIS for

the Project. The EIS will meet all the applicable requirements of Minnesota Rules Chapters 4410.0200 to 4410.6500 (EQB rules) that regulate the Minnesota Environmental Review Program. The DNR will obtain the services of a consultant to assist in EIS preparation but will retain control of and responsibility for the content and analysis contained in the EIS.

6. The EQB rules require a thorough but succinct discussion of potentially significant direct

or indirect, adverse, or beneficial effects generated. Data and analyses shall be commensurate with the importance of the impact and the relevance of the information to a reasoned choice among alternatives and to the consideration of the need for mitigation measures.

7. The EQB rules direct the RGU to consider the relationship between the cost of data and

analyses and the relevance and importance of the information in determining the level of detail of information to be prepared for the EIS.

8. In 1997, the EQB amended its rules to emphasize that only potentially significant issues

need to be addressed in the EIS. The amendment brought the rules into conformity with Minnesota Statutes Section 116D.04, Subdivision 2a, which states that an EIS analyzes the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts. In addition, the amendment “shifts the focus of scoping towards the purpose of the EIS (better decision making) and away from merely responding to public controversy, “ (March 6, 1995 Statement of Need and Reasonableness).

Ispat Inland, East Reserve Project Page 1 of 3 EIS Scoping Procedures – August 25, 2005

9. The DNR prepared and issued for public review and comment a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document, both prepared in accordance with MN Rules Ch. 4410.2100.

10. The Notice of Availability for review of the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision

Document was published in the EQB Monitor (Vol. 29, No. 14) on July 4, 2005, thereby beginning a mandatory 30-day public review and comment period, which concluded August 3, 2005 per MN Rules Ch. 4410.2100, Subpart 3A.

11. The DNR supplied a press release to at least one newspaper in the vicinity of the

proposed project announcing the availability of the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document, the opportunity for public comment, and the location of review copies.

12. The DNR provided public review copies of the scoping documents to two public libraries,

as well as the DNR Library in St. Paul, and the DNR Northeast Regional Office in Grand Rapids, Minnesota.

13. On Tuesday, July 26, 2005, the DNR held a public scoping meeting, as required by

Minnesota Rules Part 4410.2100, Subpart 3B, at the Biwabik City Hall Pavilion in Biwabik, MN from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Approximately 16 people attended the meeting. The attendees received information about the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, the project, the proposed EIS contents, and were given an opportunity to ask questions about the project and the EIS process. The DNR provided a comment form for submitting written comments on the proposed EIS scope.

14. The DNR received three comment letters and verbal comments (transcribed by a

stenographer during the scoping meeting) from five City of Biwabik employees on the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document during the 30-day review and comment period. Comments were received from:

David Sherek, Biwabik Public Utility Commission Jane Reyer, National Wildlife Federation Larry Minton, Attorney for City of Biwabik

Verbal comments recorded (stenographer) at July 26th Public Scoping Meeting: David Sherek, Dale Sandnas, Larry Minton, Terry Lowell, and Marty Halverson

15. The EQB rules do not require the RGU to respond to comments received on the Scoping

EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document, but require the RGU to consider the comments received in developing the final Scoping Decision.

16. The EQB rules require the RGU to issue a final Scoping Decision within 15 days after

the close of the 30-day scoping period. 17. The DNR considered the comments received during the scoping period made revisions

to the Draft Scoping Decision Document as warranted, and issued the Final Scoping Decision on August 24, 2005.


18. The Scoping Decision will be sent, within 5 days of completion, to all parties on the EQB Distribution List, to all parties submitting comments on the draft EIS scope, and to all parties requesting copies.

19. Comments received, and responses or discussion of their consideration, are attached to

this document.


RESPONSES TO EIS SCOPING COMMENTS ISPAT INLAND, EAST RESERVE PROJECT

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MINNESOTA

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received four comment letters on the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document during the 30-day review and comment period. Comments were received from: David Sherek, Biwabik Public Utility Commission Jane Reyer, National Wildlife Federation Larry Minton, Attorney for City of Biwabik Verbal comments recorded (Court Reporter) at July 26th Public Scoping Meeting: David Sherek, Dale Sandnas, Larry Minton, Terry Lowell, and Marty Halverson The comments relating to the EIS scope are condensed and summarized below. In some cases, similar comments were submitted in multiple letters; these are treated as one. Copies of the comment letters are attached for reference. The comments primarily address issues already proposed for some degree of EIS inclusion in the Draft Scoping Decision. Other comments necessitated additions to, or clarification of, information in the both scoping documents. The responses identify substantive comment-based revisions to the Draft Scoping Decision Document.

COMMENTS RELATING TO THE SCOPING EAW A number of comments on the Scoping EAW indicated it lacked information in some areas. The EQB’s Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules advise RGUs that for significant EIS topics, little factual information should be included in the EAW. Instead, the EAW may simply state that the EIS will include a major discussion of the topic and provide a description of its intended scope and study methods. Consequently the EAW contains the least detailed information about issues that will be discussed extensively in the EIS, and more complete information regarding issues that will not be covered in the EIS. Comment: Did not see any maps that show the Biwabik/Canton Mine Pit. Consideration/Response: The Biwabik Canton Mine Pit is shown in a number of figures (i.e. 9-2, 9-5, 12-1, and 13-2). Changes in Scope: None ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: Disagrees that this project is not a “subsequent stage of an earlier project” (question 6e of the EAW). Consideration/Response: Comment acknowledged. This project is a subsequent stage of an earlier project. Changes in Scope: None

Ispat Inland Mining, East Reserve Project Page 1 of 3 Responses to EIS Scoping Comments 8/25/05

COMMENTS RELATING TO PROPOSED EIS SCOPE Comments and issues regarding the proposed EIS scope are organized below. The Final Scoping Decision Document was renumber to reflect changes and the sections where substantive changes were made in the Final Scoping Decision Document are identified. Comment: Concerned about the potential drop of the Canton Pit water elevation once Ispat begins dewatering nearby pits. Specifically, how it will affect the way that the city of Biwabik currently obtains its water from the Canton Pit and who will encumber the financial costs if changes in engineering are required. Concerned that the quality of effluence and/or turbidity caused by the dewatering plan will create the need for changes in the Biwabik municipal water treatment plant. The EIS should address who will encumber the financial expense necessary to keep the drinking water quality at its current standards, which are currently better than the drinking water standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Consideration/Response: The EIS proposes to evaluate the potential effects dewatering will have on the groundwater resource and water levels in the Canton Pit (Sections 3.2.1, 3.2.4, and 3.3.3 of draft scoping decision document). Question 12 (Surface Water and Groundwater) of the EAW describes the issues related to the Canton Pit and Biwabik’s water supply and the measures proposed to ensure a continuous drinking water supply. Changes in Scope: The EIS will be revised to address issues that will affect water levels and water quality in the Canton Pit and Corsica Pit, specifically the impacts dewatering will have on the water levels and the alternative methods/engineering that will be required to ensure a continued high-quality water supply. The EIS will discuss contingency plans and infrastructure changes including economic considerations associated with maintaining an adequate drinking water supply. See sections 3.3.1, 3.3.4, and 3.4.3 in the Final Scoping Decision Document. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: EIS should address the City of Biwabik’s current drinking water quality and determine a baseline. Consideration/Response: Comment noted Changes in Scope: Current drinking water quality baseline values will be identified as part of the EIS. See section 3.4.3 in the Final Scoping Decision Document. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: Concern that the EIS does not realistically estimate the water levels in the Canton Pit, and if the water levels end up being lower than anticipated, what would be the contingency for that situation. Consideration/Response: The purpose of the proposed groundwater and surface water studies are aimed at collecting, compiling and analyzing ground and surface water data to ensure an accurate estimate of the water levels in the Canton Pit and the potential for those levels to drop during dewatering. In addition, the proposed dewatering plan calls for ratable pumping which would allow for better observation of the water levels in the Canton Pit, thereby allowing time for contingency/engineering. See section 6.0 (Special Studies or Research) in the Final Scoping Decision Document. Changes in Scope: None


Comment: Concern about pumping pit water into the Canton Pit to compensate for drops in water elevation due to the dewatering plan. Consideration/Response: There are no plans to discharge into the Canton Pit. This subject is addressed in question 17 of the EAW under the heading Canton Pit. Changes in Scope: None ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: Disagrees that there will be no impacts from the Minorca plant with the development of the East Reserve. Concerned that the plant will continue to impact air and water quality if the East Reserve is developed. The EIS should assess the environmental benefits of reduced pollution as they pertain to the no-action alternative. Consideration/Response: Section 2.2 of the draft scoping decision document indicates that the EIS will describe the expected condition if the proposed project is not developed, with respect to the potential environmental and socioeconomic effects. Changes in Scope: None ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: Cumulative impacts analysis should include a discussion on the impacts of mining on the hydrology and water quality of the Embarrass River and Embarrass River watershed. Consideration/Response: Section 3.3.6 of the draft scoping decision document indicates increased flow/volume in unnamed streams and the Embarrass River will be addressed in the EIS. Changes in Scope: Revise Section 3.3.6 to include the cumulative impacts to both water quantity and quality in unnamed streams and Embarrass River. See section 3.4.6 in the Final Scoping Decision Document. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Comment: Disagrees with the decision to use wetland credits in Aitkin County to compensate for wetland loss resulting from the proposed East Reserve project. Mitigation of wetlands should begin with replacement/restoration first in the Embarrass River watershed and St. Louis River watershed or restoration of other aquatic habitat in the St. Louis River watershed as alternatives to using banked credits outside the Lake Superior basin. Consideration/Response: A good faith search for wetland replacement sites near the mining areas in the St. Louis River watershed was conducted by Ispat Inland in 1995. Having found no adequate sites, the search was resumed in Aitkin County where a wetland replacement site was identified. Special one-time legislation passed by the Minnesota State Legislature allowed exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) location criteria for the site (1996), and permitted wetland mitigation outside the county and watershed in which the activities were conducted. Previous agreements between the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and Ispat Inland authorize 1:1 compensatory wetland mitigation for the proposed East Reserve mine development. Changes in Scope: None


From: "David Sherek" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Date: Fri, Jul 15, 2005 8:40 AM Subject: east reserve Dear Sir: My name is David Sherek, and I live in Biwabik, Mn. I am on the Biwabik Public Utility commission, and last night I saw very quickly a copy of the Scoping EAW and Draft SDD. I saw maps that are 40 to 60 years old. I didn't see anything that shows the Biwabik Mine Pit or The canton Mine Pit where the city of Biwabik draws its water supply. If I may, a little bit of history. About 20 years ago, J & L opened a pit near McKinley and harvested iron ore. Then they moved to a location called Belgrade, and drained a lake to recover the iron ore from there. While draining that lake, the water from close by Mary Ellen Mine Pit dropped way down. That pit is connected to the Canton and Biwabik Pits by the aquafer, and when Inland wants to start mining, and pumping water out of new pits, the elevation of the Three pits mentioned will drastically drop. Biwabik PUC gets water from a pump located on a raft, and when the surface elevation changes by natural means, (Rain and Snow) it costs a lot to adjust the raft. The proposed inland mine will end up with a pit bottom elevation 224 feet from the present surface of the Canton pit. There is no way we can absorb the cost to keep moving the raft as the aquafer lowers to accomodate the Inland ore removal. Not to mention that the pit may not be deep enough for the raft to drop to that elevation. We want Inland to drill some wells to provide Biwabik with water as sufficiently as is present. We want to talk to them about the location of those wells, either before ar after your meeting on the 26 July in the Biwabik Pavillion. These things I mention are probably not on anyones record, or charts, but memory serves many of us here the same, so I wish these things to be considered before any other EAW or SDD be aproved. Thank you. David Sherek, Box 525, Biwabik, Minnesota, 55708. Phone 218-865-6421. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------

Jane Reyer, Attorney at Law 220 Pike Lake Road ⊃ Grand Marais, Minnesota 55604 218/387-3377 ⊃ [email protected] August 1, 2005 Scott Ek Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Rd. St. Paul, MN 55155 John Ahlness Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District 190 E. 5th St. St. Paul, MN 55101-1639 Re: Draft scoping EAW for Ispat Inland East Reserve Project Dear Mr. Ek and Mr. Ahlness,

I am writing on behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to comment on the draft scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Ispat Inland Mining’s East Reserve Project. NWF is the nation’s largest member-supported conservation education and advocacy organization. NWF and its members want to maintain and protect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters, including those in Minnesota. NWF’s members enjoy the beneficial uses provided by wetlands, rivers, and lakes, including their value as habitat for fish and wildlife. Protecting both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat for current and future generations is central to NWF’s mission.

NWF has made a special commitment to protection and restoration of Lake Superior and its tributary waters, launching the Lake Superior Project in 1991. This project is dedicated to ensuring that the goals of the Lake Superior Binational Program, including the protection and restoration of ecosystems and water quality within the Lake Superior basin, are achieved. The Lake Superior Project works with many members and supporters who live and/or recreate in the Lake Superior basin and who have a strong interest in maintaining the high quality of the waters and ecosystems within the basin. As you know, a large number of proposed industrial projects in the Lake Superior basin have had either environmental review documents or permits on public notice this summer. As a result, NWF staff have been unable to review many individual proposals as thoroughly as we would like to. Our review of the Ispat Inland EAW has been somewhat cursory, and these comments should not be construed to mean that we are satisfied with the EAW in all respects other than those mentioned here.

NWF disagrees that this project is not a “subsequent stage of an earlier project” (question 6e). Indeed, the EAW itself states that “the purpose of this project is to extend the production life of the Minorca taconite facility.” Furthermore, if development of an additional pit in the future is considered to be a later stage of the project, how could mining the Laurentian pit not be an earlier stage? NWF also disagrees that there will be no impacts from the Minorca plant from the development of the East Reserve. The plant will continue to impact air quality as well as water quality from the deposition of air pollutants if the East Reserve is mined. Those impacts will not occur if the plant closes due to lack of ore. The draft scoping decision states that the EAW will assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the no-action alternative. Those impacts will no doubt include the impacts to workers and the community of plant closure. Will they also include the environmental benefits of reduced pollution? If not, it is hard to imagine a more biased presentation of the impacts of this alternative. If so, why omit the impacts of continued pollution from a discussion of the preferred alternative? The cumulative impacts analysis should include a discussion of the cumulative impacts of mining on the hydrology and water quality of the Embarrass River and on wetlands in the Embarrass River watershed. In particular, the past impacts of the Minorca facility and its associated mines must be disclosed and considered in conjunction with the projected impacts of the new mine. Finally, it appears that a decision to use wetland credits for wetlands created outside of the Lake Superior basin has been made prematurely. An analysis of mitigation should begin with consideration of wetland replacement or restoration first in the Embarrass River watershed and then in the St. Louis River watershed. NWF would also like to see an exploration of the potential for restoration of other aquatic habitat in the St. Louis River watershed as an alternative to creating wetlands or using banked credits outside of the Lake Superior basin. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft EAW. Sincerely, Jane Reyer

Wetland Cumulative Impacts Analysis Work Scope Ispat Inland East Reserve Project February 1, 2006 A semi-quantitative analysis of cumulative impacts to wetlands will be performed. Because several of the primary functions performed by wetlands are directly related to watershed processes, the analysis will be performed on a watershed basis. The majority of the wetland impacts are proposed in the Embarrass River watershed, but 8.7 acres of impact are proposed in the Vermilion River watershed (Pike River subwatershed) due to the haul road. The geographic area of analysis will include the 38 square mile Pike River subwatershed and the Embarrass River watershed, which covers approximately 180 square miles extending from Gilbert to Babbitt (Figure 1). Historical activities within the study areas that have affected wetland resources are primarily mining activities, urban development, and road construction that started on a large scale in the early 1950’s. The remainder and majority of the study area has seen limited disturbance and loss of wetlands. The baseline condition for wetland resources will be established using the following approach. The National Wetland Inventory data will be used to help establish the baseline wetland condition in the undisturbed areas of the watershed since it is the best data representing the extent of wetland resources in the study area. In the areas that have been significantly altered, wetlands will be mapped and classified to the extent feasible using a number of historic data resources layered in a geographic information system including:

• 1930’s aerial photographs • Original U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle topography maps

from the early 1950’s, prior to the onset of significant mining activities • MDNR GIS data that incorporates notes from the original survey of the area

and includes detailed wetland vegetation information

The baseline condition will also include a description of how conditions affecting wetlands have changed over time and how they are likely to change in the future; both with and without the proposed projects. The next step will be to prepare a mapping of wetland resources as they exist at the present time, before the start of any further projects in the study area. This wetland mapping will be prepared using information from the National Wetland Inventory mapping and from site-specific wetland surveys that have been conducted within the study area. This wetland mapping will be compared to the historic wetland (baseline) mapping to quantify the effects of past activities on wetland resources within the analysis area. Wetland losses from the following reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area will be included in the analysis as forecasted for 20-years, consistent with the Ispat Inland’s projection of 16-years of operation and an assumed 4-years of closure:

• Proposed Ispat Inland mine • Tailings disposal for the proposed PolyMet mine and processing operation

Wetland Cumulative Impacts Analysis Work Scope Ispat Inland East Reserve Project February 1, 2006

Losses from other proposed projects with the potential to affect wetland resources in the study area will also be included in the analysis if wetland impact information is available at the time of the analysis from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts related to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions will be evaluated through a quantitative summary of the number of acres of various wetland types that may have been affected in the past and may be affected in the future and the magnitude of those effects within the study area. Trends that may be discernible from evaluating the data will be discussed. This evaluation will include determining whether various wetland types are particularly vulnerable to rapid degradation. The “magnitude” of the effects will be evaluated within the context of the overall wetland resources within the study area. Unavoidable wetland impacts will be mitigated with existing, restored wetlands located within the Mississippi River-Brainerd major watershed in accordance with the state and federal wetland permitting programs. In addition, after reclamation has been completed, there will be approximately an additional 364 acres of open water mine pits on the site.

2

McKinley\Pit

Canton\Pit

Mary Ellen\Pit

Belgrade\Sink Mud\Lake

Corsica\Pit

Mud (69-567 W)

McKi nle y Lake \(69 -57 0W)

Black La ke\(69 -56 9 P)

White (69-571 P)

Forge Lak e\(69 -57 2W)

Sa lt Lak e\(69 -57 4W)

Unnamed(69-576W)Round Lake \(69 -57 5W)

Es quagama \(69 -56 5 P)

Lea f Lak e\(69 -61 0 P)

Deep (69-666P)Gill (69-667 P)

Lost Lak e\(69 -611 P)

Silver (69-563 P)

Ely (69-660 P)

Lit tle Esquagama \(69 -56 4 P)

Bass (69-553 P)

Unnamed(69-554W)

Silver (69-555 P)

Fourth Lake \(69 -57 3W)

Ceda r Isla nd La ke\(69 -56 8 P)

Embarra ss Lak e\(69 -49 6 P)


Ceda r Isla nd Lake \(69 -56 8 P)

Babbitt

Hoyt Lakes

Virginia

Gilbert

Eveleth

Biwabik Aurora

Tower

Mountain Iron

McKinley

Mountain Iron

St. Louis69

""135

""1

""169

""37

£¤53

Babbitt

Hoyt Lakes

Virginia

Gilbert

Eveleth

Biwabik

Aurora

Tower

McKinley

£¤53

UV135

UV169

UV1

UV37

UV105

UV1 UV169

UV135

UV37

21

1

Vermilion

Town Line

Wilson

Britt

Giants

Ridge

9th

70 Scott

68

Ely Babbitt

Pike Embarrass

Miller Trunk

Tower Biwabik

RiceRiver

Town Line

GiantsRidge

70

21

TownLin

e

St. Louis

Vermilion Lake

McKinley\Pit

Canton\Pit

Mary Ellen\Pit

Belgrade\Sink Mud\Lake

Corsica\Pit

Mud (69-567 W)

McKi nle y Lake \(69 -57 0W)

Black La ke\(69 -56 9 P)

White (69-571 P)

Forge Lak e\(69 -57 2W)

Sa lt Lak e\(69 -57 4W)

Unnamed(69-576W)Round Lake \(69 -57 5W)

Es quagama \(69 -56 5 P)

Lea f Lak e\(69 -61 0 P)

Deep (69-666P)Gill (69-667 P)

Lost Lak e\(69 -611 P)

Silver (69-563 P)

Ely (69-660 P)

Lit tle Esquagama \(69 -56 4 P)

Bass (69-553 P)

Unnamed(69-554W)

Silver (69-555 P)

Fourth Lake \(69 -57 3W)

Ceda r Isla nd La ke\(69 -56 8 P)



Ceda r Isla nd Lake \(69 -56 8 P)

Babbitt

Hoyt Lakes

Virginia

Gilbert

Eveleth

Biwabik Aurora

Tower

Mountain Iron

McKinley

Mountain Iron

St. Louis69

""135

""1

""169

""37

£¤53

Babbitt

Hoyt Lakes

Virginia

Gilbert

Eveleth

Biwabik

Aurora

Tower

McKinley

£¤53

UV135

UV169

UV1

UV37

UV105

UV1 UV169

UV135

UV37

21

1

Vermilion

Town Line

Wilson

Britt

Giants

Ridge

9th

70 Scott

68

Ely Babbitt

Pike Embarrass

Miller Trunk

Tower Biwabik

RiceRiver

Town Line

GiantsRidge

70

21

TownLin

e

St. Louis

Vermilion Lake

.3 0 3 61.5 Miles

Figure 1

STUDY AREA MAPWetland Cumulative Impacts Study Area

Ispat Inland Steel Mining

Barr Footer: Date: 12/15/2005 3:56:41 PM File: I:\Projects\23\69\909_Inland\Gis\Maps\CumulativeWetlandImps.mxd User: maj

LegendField Verified Wetlands

Delineated Wetlands

Ispat Inland Mine and Stockpile Areas

Embarrass River Watershed

Cities

Embarrass Wetland Bank

DNR Protected Waters

Wetlands

Streams

Pike RiverWatershed

Embarrass RiverWatershed

Final Scoping Decision...

Documents

Transcript of Final Scoping Decision...