TAMARACK — Although most attention lately has been on mining proposals around the Boundary Waters, another copper-nickel project is further along in the state’s regulatory process.
This fact is by no means lost on Kelly Applegate, commissioner of natural resources for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.
He helps lead the band’s Water Over Nickel alliance, raising awareness of mining risks near the reservation in east-central Minnesota. If a mine known as the Tamarack Nickel Project started operating, Applegate said, it would be within miles of the band’s members, important cultural sites, wild rice beds and fisheries.
“This is a very water-rich environment,” he said after a speech at the Minnesota Capitol in April. “That’s the concerning part about this is. If this is going to be the first proposal for a sulfide mine, it’s in the worst spot it could be in.”
Discussions around Tamarack echo themes playing out for a Twin Metals’ copper-nickel proposal near the Boundary Waters, which in April cleared a key federal hurdle in the U.S. Senate. Tribal and environmental groups are pushing back against the projects, calling for stronger protections on pristine water sources, while mining backers insist that the projects can be done safely.
But there’s at least one notable difference between Twin Metals and Tamarack. Twin Metals hasn’t yet started a lengthy state environmental review process, while Talon Metals, the company pursuing Tamarack, is approaching an early benchmark.
What does this benchmark represent?
Starting in July, the Department of Natural Resources will open a public comment period for Minnesotans to weigh in on Tamarack. In baseball terms, think of this as Tamarack reaching first base.
To put in context how long it takes for a project to get even this far, Tamarack has been in the state’s scoping process for about three years. Scoping includes a back-and-forth dialogue between the company, state regulators and potentially impacted groups.
Exploratory work on the project began even longer ago, dating to 2002, said Jessica Johnson, a spokesperson for Talon Metals.
Tamarack would primarily mine nickel, a valuable mineral used in electric vehicle production, and secondarily mine copper near McGregor in Aitkin County. The company is looking to follow in the footsteps of the underground Eagle Mine, located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, which Johnson said is the only primary nickel mine operation in the United States.
Eagle Mine, which Talon Metals acquired in late 2025, has about 425 employees. The estimated operating total for Tamarack would be around 300, Johnson said.
Continuing with baseball metaphors, two subsequent public periods would represent second and third base. Tamarack would need to round both of those and get past additional environmental impact statement scrutiny on either side of the bases in order to reach home plate, a timeline that will easily take years.
Still, getting this far is significant, Johnson said.
“It's just an exciting step to continue to gather input on the project and continue to go through the process to make this the best project it can be,” she said.
What does the comment period represent for Tamarack’s opponents?
It’s the latest opportunity for Tamarack opponents to generate a groundswell against the project. The Mille Lacs band, Friends of the Mississippi River and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy are combining on the effort.
For anyone who was following Boundary Waters news, this is the most immediate way to weigh in on Minnesota’s water protections, Applegate said.
“We're asking all of Minnesota to give a heartfelt response to what water means to them and to say, ‘No, this is too much of a water-rich area to risk,’” he said.
What happens with Tamarack won’t only impact wild rice, or manoomin, harvested on nearby Sandy Lake, or fish caught in nearby Lake Mille Lacs, but also potentially water downstream on the Mississippi River, he added.
“People like to think it’s just a localized concern,” he said. “But it’s much bigger and broader.”
Johnson said Talon Metals has sought out feedback throughout the process, taking serious steps to adjust plans in response to concerns. One change included moving plans for tailings and nickel and copper processing to a site in North Dakota, a repurposed coal mine site.
“That was just one of those things we wanted to do very early on with the project to take the approach of listening to the community and actually take action with our design,” she said.
To Water Over Nickel, the adjustments look like an admission of the risks associated with nickel mining. Hopefully, Applegate said, Minnesotans use the comment period to amplify tribal concerns for the project.
“They’re making these types of high-impact decisions that can affect our resources, like land, water, our culture and our people,” he said. “Through the agreements that we’ve made, those are guaranteed to be protected for us on our forever homelands, or what’s left of them, and that’s just not happening.”
This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
