DNR educates, hears public comments on proposed Tamarack Mine

McGREGOR – Hundreds of people sporting yellow and blue filled the entryway of McGregor High School, as if headed to watch a varsity basketball game.

Instead, the crowd made its way into the auditorium for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ public meeting on the Tamarack Mining Project.

Many of those in attendance dressed to show their stance on Talon Metals’ proposal to open a copper-nickel mine 1.5 miles north of Tamarack. Supporters of the plan wore royal blue shirts with “Mining Minnesota” across the back. Those opposed donned bright yellow bandanas that read, “Talons off our wetlands.”

The meeting Wednesday, Aug. 5 was part of the ongoing public scoping comment period, an early step in the environmental review process led by the DNR for any new mining proposed in Minnesota.

“It's a high-profile project,” said DNR’s Deputy Commissioner Barb Naramore. “Certainly expected a good turnout, and that's what we have.”

The open house portion of the event offered an opportunity for community members to learn about the environmental review process and the proposed mine.

“We really want it to be accessible to people. We want people to understand the project we're evaluating,” Naramore said. “Meetings like this are one of our opportunities to sort of draw back the curtain and say, ‘Hey, this is what we're doing, and this is how we're doing it.’”

During the public comment portion of the meeting, dozens of people who had signed up to speak were randomly selected. Each commenter had three minutes to address the auditorium.

Some expressed their concerns about the project, including Mary Larson, who said she lives 20 miles west of Tamarack.

“I'm concerned that water pumped from the mine, which has contacted waste rock, would contain enough sulfate to contaminate not only wild rice beds but potentially private wells in the area, including my own well and the Mississippi and St. Croix watersheds, which supply water to a huge number of people,” she said.

For Virgil Wind, chief executive for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, the concern is paired with a sense of responsibility.

“We must ensure that short-term economic gain cannot outweigh the long-term damage that all of our communities could be stuck with. My responsibility is to protect our people, but that requires having a clear understanding of the risks that they may face. That clarity does not yet exist for the proposed Tamarack mine,” he said.

Stella Mayerhoff

/

KAXE / Report for America

Others offered their support for the mine.

“The question before us is not whether the world needs these materials. It does. The question is whether they will be produced here under Minnesota's environmental standards and oversight, or imported from places with far weaker protections,” said District 3A State Representative Roger Skraba.

Local farmer Frank Demenge said he lives within a mile of the mine proposed by Talon Metals.

“We’ve watched this company work, and they do very good work,” he said. “They’re taking steps to do this right for this community.”

Demenge also spoke of a conversation he once had with a farmer, who expressed that too many projects and local jobs had been turned away from the area.

According to Naramore, the DNR considers all feedback, organizes comments by theme and publishes its responses as part of the review process. She said although comments expressing general support or opposition to a project are welcome, the most useful comments are those that show an understanding of the project and provide relevant feedback about the documents under review.

“This isn't a decision about whether the DNR or the state likes the project or doesn't like the project. It's about how we evaluate the project through the EIS process, and so the comments that really focus on that are the ones that are going to be most helpful to us,” she said.

State law requires the environmental review process under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of the review is to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental, economic and social effects of a project. It also involves considering alternatives that could avoid or mitigate those effects.

The current public comment period is the first of three required in the review process. There are several means for providing comments, including online, by mail or at the DNR’s public meetings.

If the project moves forward, the next steps will be compiling drafted and final versions of the Environmental Impact Statements, or EIS, each with an associated public comment period. The final EIS must be deemed adequate before a project can begin operating.

The DNR encourages people to get informed and involved in the process, regardless of where they stand on the project.

“At the end of the day, we really want them to have confidence that that review has been rigorous. It's been neutral. It's been science-based. Doesn't mean everybody's going to agree to every conclusion we reach, and we totally appreciate that, right? But we do want people to be confident that we did our jobs, and we did it well,” Naramore said.

The public scoping comment period closes Wednesday, Sept. 14.

Stella Mayerhoff is a Report for America corps member, covering Minnesota’s headwaters region for KAXE in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Report for America places talented journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues and regions.