Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF2 messages
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Thu Jun 7 2012 at 406 PMTo Vogt Vincent N ltvvogtCc Anderson Randall C ltr35ander Storzer Mark A ltmstorzer
Hi Vince our WO planning liaison Michael Hildner referred me to you through Larry Jackson a few months backin preparation of the Northeastern States FO completing a ROD for an EIS for 29 prospecting permits on theSuperior NF in Minnesota (see attached email) At that time we had requested any examples of a BLM ROD fora Forest Service EIS for hardrock mineral exploration We didnrsquot hear anything back so I assumed that not manygood examples of this type of document exist in the BLM So with that in mind could you possibly look overthis attached draft ROD and provide comments when you have some time It is due in final form early in Julyso there is time
The Forest Service ROD and FEIS can be found here httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155
Thanks for any help you or your staff can provide on this
Kurt
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
2 attachments
nonameeml12K
Superior NF ROD for Prospecting Permits - March 2012docx41K
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Fri Jun 8 2012 at 351 PMTo Vogt Vincent N ltvvogtCc Anderson Randall C ltr35ander Storzer Mark A ltmstorzer Leverette Mitchellltmleveret Martin Benjamin F ltbmartin
Thanks Vince this really helps tremendouslyhellipappreciate it
Kurt
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
From Vogt Vincent N Sent Friday June 08 2012 1005 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt JCc Anderson Randall C Storzer Mark A Leverette Mitchell Martin Benjamin FSubject RE Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF
Hi Kurt
Good job on this draft ROD I have some suggestions in the attached I hope they are helpful ThanksVince
From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday June 07 2012 507 PMTo Vogt Vincent NCc Anderson Randall C Storzer Mark ASubject Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF
[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Notice of Publication of ROD1 message
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Mon Sep 10 2012 at 354 PMTo Storzer Mark A ltmstorzerCc Malik Martha M ltmmalik Grundman Carol ltcgrundma Anderson Randall Cltr35ander
Mark could you look this over and let me know if this looks good by sometime tomorrow (Tuesday) We need toget it to the Duluth News Tribune by Wednesday for publication in the newspaper next Thursday the 20th Alsodo you want us to post this as a display ad or as a legal ad
Thanks
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
Legal Notice Superiordoc71K
From Malik Martha MTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20Date Wednesday September 12 2012 95528 AM
Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website Will this task be conducted through theState Office If so please advise Davida well in advance Just a reminder From Anderson Randall C Sent Thursday September 06 2012 1104 AMTo Grundman CarolCc Malik Martha MSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20 From Storzer Mark A Sent Friday August 31 2012 954 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt J Anderson Randall C Bodus Theresa M Gettinger Dean SCc Wagner Kathy MSubject Superior ROD Greetings All Here is a list of steps that I put together to ensure that we get the Superior ROD released assmoothly as possible The release date will be Friday September 21 Superior ROD To Do List Signature and Posting Date ndashThursday September 20 2012 Tuesday September 4 (Kathy) Fed Ex ROD and Letter to State Director for signatureThursday September 6 Print letters and prepare labelsenvelopsMonday September 10 Prepare legal notice for Duluth News TribuneMonday September 17 Mail letters to mailing list ndash 370 labelsWednesday September 19 Send email (simply paste the letter into email)Wednesday September 19 Send link to Forest Service (Peter Taylor)Thursday September 20 Publish notice in Duluth News Tribune Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website The mailing lists (both snail mail and email) and the ROD are on the T drive T3 WORKING FOLDERS BY DIVISIONPLANNINGSuperior NF Prospecting PermitsEISROD_Release Let me know if there are any questions
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
2 attachments
nonameeml12K
Superior NF ROD for Prospecting Permits - March 2012docx41K
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Fri Jun 8 2012 at 351 PMTo Vogt Vincent N ltvvogtCc Anderson Randall C ltr35ander Storzer Mark A ltmstorzer Leverette Mitchellltmleveret Martin Benjamin F ltbmartin
Thanks Vince this really helps tremendouslyhellipappreciate it
Kurt
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
From Vogt Vincent N Sent Friday June 08 2012 1005 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt JCc Anderson Randall C Storzer Mark A Leverette Mitchell Martin Benjamin FSubject RE Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF
Hi Kurt
Good job on this draft ROD I have some suggestions in the attached I hope they are helpful ThanksVince
From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday June 07 2012 507 PMTo Vogt Vincent NCc Anderson Randall C Storzer Mark ASubject Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF
[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Notice of Publication of ROD1 message
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Mon Sep 10 2012 at 354 PMTo Storzer Mark A ltmstorzerCc Malik Martha M ltmmalik Grundman Carol ltcgrundma Anderson Randall Cltr35ander
Mark could you look this over and let me know if this looks good by sometime tomorrow (Tuesday) We need toget it to the Duluth News Tribune by Wednesday for publication in the newspaper next Thursday the 20th Alsodo you want us to post this as a display ad or as a legal ad
Thanks
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
Legal Notice Superiordoc71K
From Malik Martha MTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20Date Wednesday September 12 2012 95528 AM
Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website Will this task be conducted through theState Office If so please advise Davida well in advance Just a reminder From Anderson Randall C Sent Thursday September 06 2012 1104 AMTo Grundman CarolCc Malik Martha MSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20 From Storzer Mark A Sent Friday August 31 2012 954 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt J Anderson Randall C Bodus Theresa M Gettinger Dean SCc Wagner Kathy MSubject Superior ROD Greetings All Here is a list of steps that I put together to ensure that we get the Superior ROD released assmoothly as possible The release date will be Friday September 21 Superior ROD To Do List Signature and Posting Date ndashThursday September 20 2012 Tuesday September 4 (Kathy) Fed Ex ROD and Letter to State Director for signatureThursday September 6 Print letters and prepare labelsenvelopsMonday September 10 Prepare legal notice for Duluth News TribuneMonday September 17 Mail letters to mailing list ndash 370 labelsWednesday September 19 Send email (simply paste the letter into email)Wednesday September 19 Send link to Forest Service (Peter Taylor)Thursday September 20 Publish notice in Duluth News Tribune Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website The mailing lists (both snail mail and email) and the ROD are on the T drive T3 WORKING FOLDERS BY DIVISIONPLANNINGSuperior NF Prospecting PermitsEISROD_Release Let me know if there are any questions
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Hi Kurt
Good job on this draft ROD I have some suggestions in the attached I hope they are helpful ThanksVince
From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday June 07 2012 507 PMTo Vogt Vincent NCc Anderson Randall C Storzer Mark ASubject Review of a ROD for Prospecting Permits - Superior NF
[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Notice of Publication of ROD1 message
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Mon Sep 10 2012 at 354 PMTo Storzer Mark A ltmstorzerCc Malik Martha M ltmmalik Grundman Carol ltcgrundma Anderson Randall Cltr35ander
Mark could you look this over and let me know if this looks good by sometime tomorrow (Tuesday) We need toget it to the Duluth News Tribune by Wednesday for publication in the newspaper next Thursday the 20th Alsodo you want us to post this as a display ad or as a legal ad
Thanks
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
Legal Notice Superiordoc71K
From Malik Martha MTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20Date Wednesday September 12 2012 95528 AM
Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website Will this task be conducted through theState Office If so please advise Davida well in advance Just a reminder From Anderson Randall C Sent Thursday September 06 2012 1104 AMTo Grundman CarolCc Malik Martha MSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20 From Storzer Mark A Sent Friday August 31 2012 954 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt J Anderson Randall C Bodus Theresa M Gettinger Dean SCc Wagner Kathy MSubject Superior ROD Greetings All Here is a list of steps that I put together to ensure that we get the Superior ROD released assmoothly as possible The release date will be Friday September 21 Superior ROD To Do List Signature and Posting Date ndashThursday September 20 2012 Tuesday September 4 (Kathy) Fed Ex ROD and Letter to State Director for signatureThursday September 6 Print letters and prepare labelsenvelopsMonday September 10 Prepare legal notice for Duluth News TribuneMonday September 17 Mail letters to mailing list ndash 370 labelsWednesday September 19 Send email (simply paste the letter into email)Wednesday September 19 Send link to Forest Service (Peter Taylor)Thursday September 20 Publish notice in Duluth News Tribune Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website The mailing lists (both snail mail and email) and the ROD are on the T drive T3 WORKING FOLDERS BY DIVISIONPLANNINGSuperior NF Prospecting PermitsEISROD_Release Let me know if there are any questions
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Notice of Publication of ROD1 message
Wadzinski Kurt J ltkwadzins Mon Sep 10 2012 at 354 PMTo Storzer Mark A ltmstorzerCc Malik Martha M ltmmalik Grundman Carol ltcgrundma Anderson Randall Cltr35ander
Mark could you look this over and let me know if this looks good by sometime tomorrow (Tuesday) We need toget it to the Duluth News Tribune by Wednesday for publication in the newspaper next Thursday the 20th Alsodo you want us to post this as a display ad or as a legal ad
Thanks
K urt J Wadzinski
Planning amp Environmental Coordinator
Bureau of Land M anagement-Eastern States
N ortheastern States F ield Office
626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200
M ilwaukee WI 53202-4617
Ph
F ax 4142974405
Email kwadzins
Legal Notice Superiordoc71K
From Malik Martha MTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20Date Wednesday September 12 2012 95528 AM
Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website Will this task be conducted through theState Office If so please advise Davida well in advance Just a reminder From Anderson Randall C Sent Thursday September 06 2012 1104 AMTo Grundman CarolCc Malik Martha MSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20 From Storzer Mark A Sent Friday August 31 2012 954 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt J Anderson Randall C Bodus Theresa M Gettinger Dean SCc Wagner Kathy MSubject Superior ROD Greetings All Here is a list of steps that I put together to ensure that we get the Superior ROD released assmoothly as possible The release date will be Friday September 21 Superior ROD To Do List Signature and Posting Date ndashThursday September 20 2012 Tuesday September 4 (Kathy) Fed Ex ROD and Letter to State Director for signatureThursday September 6 Print letters and prepare labelsenvelopsMonday September 10 Prepare legal notice for Duluth News TribuneMonday September 17 Mail letters to mailing list ndash 370 labelsWednesday September 19 Send email (simply paste the letter into email)Wednesday September 19 Send link to Forest Service (Peter Taylor)Thursday September 20 Publish notice in Duluth News Tribune Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website The mailing lists (both snail mail and email) and the ROD are on the T drive T3 WORKING FOLDERS BY DIVISIONPLANNINGSuperior NF Prospecting PermitsEISROD_Release Let me know if there are any questions
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
From Malik Martha MTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20Date Wednesday September 12 2012 95528 AM
Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website Will this task be conducted through theState Office If so please advise Davida well in advance Just a reminder From Anderson Randall C Sent Thursday September 06 2012 1104 AMTo Grundman CarolCc Malik Martha MSubject FW Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursday september 20 From Storzer Mark A Sent Friday August 31 2012 954 AMTo Wadzinski Kurt J Anderson Randall C Bodus Theresa M Gettinger Dean SCc Wagner Kathy MSubject Superior ROD Greetings All Here is a list of steps that I put together to ensure that we get the Superior ROD released assmoothly as possible The release date will be Friday September 21 Superior ROD To Do List Signature and Posting Date ndashThursday September 20 2012 Tuesday September 4 (Kathy) Fed Ex ROD and Letter to State Director for signatureThursday September 6 Print letters and prepare labelsenvelopsMonday September 10 Prepare legal notice for Duluth News TribuneMonday September 17 Mail letters to mailing list ndash 370 labelsWednesday September 19 Send email (simply paste the letter into email)Wednesday September 19 Send link to Forest Service (Peter Taylor)Thursday September 20 Publish notice in Duluth News Tribune Thursday September 20 Post ROD on BLM ES website The mailing lists (both snail mail and email) and the ROD are on the T drive T3 WORKING FOLDERS BY DIVISIONPLANNINGSuperior NF Prospecting PermitsEISROD_Release Let me know if there are any questions
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Thanks Mark StorzerBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field ManagerPhone Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It maycontain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-clientprivilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not reviewuse copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by replyemail and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
Eastern States Office 7450 Boston Boulevard
Springfield Virginia 22153 httpwwwblmgoves
For Release September 20 2012 Contact Bob Gillcash
BLM Eastern States Issues Decision for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits on
the US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the
preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within
the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29
Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation
(Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery The BLM analyzed a number of alternatives but approved Alternative 4 which best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration if done in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by
requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness
This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43
CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the
website at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal
with the IBLA
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgovesstenhtml or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office 7450 Boston Boulevard 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Springfield Virginia 22153 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land ndash the most of any Federal agency This land known as the National System of Public Lands is primarily located in 12 Western states including Alaska The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 recreational and other activities on BLM-managed land contributed more than $130 billion to the US economy and supported more than 600000 American jobs The Bureau is also one of a handful of agencies that collects more revenue than it spends In FY 2012 nearly $57 billion will be generated on lands managed by the BLM which operates on a $11 billion budget The BLMs multiple-use mission is to sustain the health diversity and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation livestock grazing mineral development and energy production and by conserving natural historical cultural and other resources on public lands
-BLM-
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S Glasson Michael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 95300 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph 8Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
1
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
From Wadzinski Kurt JTo Taylor Peter RSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 105200 AMAttachments Final BLM ROD for Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permitspdf
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012pdf
Peter attached is the ROD to post to your website Also attached is a copy of the legal noticethat will appear in todayrsquos Duluth News Tribune Could you also post this document to yourwebsite So there is no confusion for the public the FS website that we are linking to in ourlegal notice is the same as you all have been posting your documents to iehttpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Thanks Peter Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617PhFax 4142974405Email kwadzins
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
1
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
BLM_Superior_Final_ROD_5_Pages
BLMRODp6001
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
BLM-EASTERN STATES ISSUES DECISION FOR FEDERAL HARDROCK
MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS ON THE US DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
Project is now available for review from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eastern
States Office in Springfield Virginia and the Northeastern States Field Office (NSFO) in
Milwaukee Wisconsin The BLM cooperated with the US Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (FS) in the preparation of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting
Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which analyzed the impacts of issuing
mineral exploration permits located within the Superior National Forest The BLM
adopted the EIS to support this ROD which addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral
prospecting permit applications received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin
Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime
Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The BLM is responsible for the administration
of the mineral estate on Federal lands and has the legal authority and responsibility to
consider issuing permits to explore for Federally-owned minerals for potential economic
recovery This decision is subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA)
as provided in 43 CFR 4 within 30 days beginning the day following the date of
publication of the ROD on the website at httpwwwblmgoves The ROD contains
instructions for filing an appeal with the IBLA Copies of the BLM ROD are available for
public inspection online at httpwwwblmgoves or at the following BLM offices
Bureau of Land Management- Eastern States 7450 Boston Boulevard Springfield
Virginia 22153 and Bureau of Land Management-Northeastern States Field Office 626
East Wisconsin Ave Suite 200 Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202 Copies of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Federal Hardrock
Mineral Prospecting Permits Project prepared by the US Forest Service are available
online at httpwwwfsfedusnepafs-usda-popphpproject=18155 Additional
information regarding this project can be obtained from Mark Storzer Field Manager
BLM-Northeastern States Field Office in Milwaukee Wisconsin at (414) 297-4400
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
From Carnahan DavidaTo Wadzinski Kurt JSubject RE Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting PermitsDate Thursday September 20 2012 102318 AM
Hey Kurt Done Lemme know if it requires refinement From Wadzinski Kurt J Sent Thursday September 20 2012 1053 AMTo Carnahan Davida Gillcash Robert SCc Lyon John G Storzer Mark A Anderson Randall C Malik Martha M Gettinger Dean S GlassonMichael WSubject Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits DavidaBob attached is the final signed BLM ROD for the Federal Hardrock MineralProspecting Permits on the Superior National Forest Please post it immediately to the EasternStates public website along with the legal notice that I forwarded to you Davida a few days ago Thank you all for making this happen Kurt Kurt J WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental CoordinatorBureau of Land Management-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202-4617Ph Fax 4142974405Email kwadzins
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
1
Wadzinski Kurt J
From Storzer Mark ASent Friday August 31 2012 1247 PMTo Lyon John G Gillcash Robert S Denny Larry R Reiland Michael Spencer Jennifer ECc Bodus Theresa M Anderson Randall C Gettinger Dean S Wadzinski Kurt J Shedd
Mary Dabney Tim Quale Brenda Taylor Peter RSubject Super ROD - Released on Thursda September 20th
Greetings All I just wanted to update everyone that the BLM Record of Decision will be released to the public on Thursday September 20th and the companies will be expecting prospecting permits and approved operating plans to also be issued on Thursday September 20th I know that is a day earlier than we had spoken about but the Forest Service signed their decision a day sooner than anticipated Each of the companies has been notified about the need to make sure that bonds are in place and operating plans need to be approved before activities can start on the ground Have a Great Holiday Weekend Mark Storzer Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Manager Phone ( Cell Fax (414) 297-4409 This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipient(s) It may contain confidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute this message If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thank you
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management LLES003000
Record of Decision
for Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits
US Department of Agriculture Superior National Forest
NEPA DOI-BLM-ES-0030-2011-0008-ROD
Date September 2012 Location Cook Lake Koochiching and St Louis Counties Minnesota Applicants DMC (USA) Corporation Twin Metals Minnesota LLC Lehmann Exploration Management Inc Encampment Resources LLC Prime Meridian Resources Inc
BLM Northeastern States Field Office 626 East Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
1
INTRODUCTION The management of the exploration and development of Federal hardrock mineral resources within National Forest System (NFS) lands is done cooperatively between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management Two interagency agreements between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (completed in 1984 and 1987) establish interagency cooperation policy and procedures in processing approval and supervision of leasable mineral operations including Federal hardrock minerals on NFS lands as authorized by licenses permits and leases The authority to grant prospecting permits and associated operating plans lies with the BLM However the applicable legal and regulatory framework provides for specific involvement at various points in the process for the surface management agency (in this case the Forest Service) including that the BLM must have the consent of the surface management agency before issuing a prospecting permit Further the BLM must consult the agency with jurisdiction over the land before approving operating plans In addition the agencies must also evaluate the proposed project for environmental impacts as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws See Section 173 of the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a more comprehensive list of authorities The Forest Service is the lead agency for conducting NEPA analysis for the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the BLM is a cooperating agency A memorandum of understanding for this project was signed by both agencies on April 29 2008 As a cooperating agency the BLM has adopted the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits EIS to support this Record of Decision (ROD) The BLM will authorize or reject the 29 prospecting permits based on Forest Service consent decisions that include stipulations in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (Chapter 24) After issuance of prospecting permits the BLM will consult with the Forest Service on conditions of approval prior to approving any ground-disturbing activities The Forest Service is responsible for issuing any related special use authorizations for any non or off-prospecting permit activities Any future exploration activities within the current 29 prospecting permits would be approved by the BLM after consultation with the Forest Service on applicable stipulations from this FEIS New special use authorizations associated with off-permit activities would be approved by the Forest Service on a case by case basis Any future prospecting permit applications will be subject to applicable NEPA compliance at the time they are received by the BLM Issuance of prospecting permits and approval of site-specific operating plans may or may not result in application for a mineral lease Should exploration activities find valuable deposits of a mineral commodity or commodities then leasing may be proposed Any leasing proposal would also be subject to review under the NEPA The Forest-wide analysis contained in the Federal Hardrock Mineral Prospecting Permits FEIS will be considered for use in the effects analysis by the Forest Service and BLM if and when future proposals are received Any future applications for prospecting permits and special use authorizations will be subject to applicable NEPA
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
2
compliance and will be analyzed on their own merits at the time they are proposed This ROD addresses 29 Federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit applications located within the Superior National Forest (SNF) that the BLM received from DMC (USA) Corporation (DMC) Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (Twin Metals) Lehmann Exploration Management Inc (Lehmann Exploration) Encampment Resources LLC (Encampment Resources) and Prime Meridian Resources Inc (Prime Meridian) The DMC and Twin Metals applications were originally submitted by Duluth Metals Corp and the company has since gone through restructuring For applications to be considered complete they must include an exploration plan that contains enough information to conduct the required NEPA analysis At this time 29 applications are complete and therefore eligible for prospecting permits DECISION The BLM will issue 28 prospecting permits and reject 1 overlapping prospecting permit application (MNES-054233) see Table 1 below The issuance of the prospecting permits is in accordance with the Forest Service ROD for the Federal Hardrock Minerals Prospecting Permits FEIS signed May 18 2012 The 28 prospecting permits will cover approximately 38545 acres of the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and include stipulations for use and protection of the NFS lands involved Consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 150610(b)(2) this decision will be in full force and effect commencing with the date it is signed by the Authorized Officer Table 1 Prospecting Permits Company Approved
Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
Lehmann Yes MNES 053731 59087 59087 X Yes MNES 054387 12938 12938 X Yes MNES 055301 9144 9144 X Yes MNES 055302 1115 1115 X
Encampment Resources
Yes MNES 053462 242396 242396 X Yes MNES 053463 206095 206095 X Yes MNES 053464 234504 234504 X Yes MNES 053465 234502 234502 X Yes MNES 053466 170728 170728 X Yes MNES 053564 1720 1720 X Yes MNES 053565 1640 1640 X Yes MNES 053566 189876 189876 X
No MNES 054233 160 0 X DMC Yes MNES 053868 20904 20904 X X342
Yes MNES 054037 232954 232954 X Yes MNES 054366 23708 23708 X
Yes MNES 054367 2360 2360 X
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
3
Company Approved Yes or No
BLM Prospecting Permit Application
Acres Acres Approved
Public Domain Authority
Weeks Act Authorityacres
DMC Yes MNES 054368 123796 123796 X Yes MNES 054385 20022 16700 X X40 Yes MNES 055203 119103 119103 X Yes MNES 055205 63955 63955 X Yes MNES 055206 251522 251522 X
Twin Metals Yes MNES 054050 5 5 X Yes MNES 054194 17802 17802 X X40 Yes MNES 054195 20337 20337 X Yes MNES 054196 94708 94708 X X120 Yes MNES 055305 320 320 X
Stipulations This decision includes the stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 The stipulations minimize adverse impacts to social and natural resources including water quality address the noise issue analyzed in the FEIS respond to Forest Plan direction allow for mineral exploration and provide for public safety Monitoring and Evaluation Throughout the life of the project monitoring data will be reviewed to determine if the stipulations are achieving the reclamation and performance goals The adaptive management process will use this monitoring data to make the necessary management changes The specific monitoring actions that are included with this decision are listed in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 3 Monitoring will help assure that stipulations are implemented and have the intended effect in protecting natural and social resources The adaptive management process enables managers to rapidly adjust mitigation and management restrictions based on real-time monitoring data ALTERNATIVES ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE Regulations implementing the NEPA require the specification of ldquohellipthe alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferablerdquo [40 CFR 15052(b)] In this project the minerals exploration activities are conducted to identify the presence or absence of a valuable mineral deposit in the geologic formations present These activities are not specifically designed to achieve forest structure or composition objectives in the Forest Plan or to otherwise provide benefits to environmental resources The application of protective stipulations included in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 will minimize adverse impacts from the action alternatives However the environmentally preferable alternative would be Alternative 1 (No Action) since no adverse impacts to natural resources would occur
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
4
SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Alternative 4 The SNF based its consent decision on the implementation of Alternative 4 This alternative best meets the goals of fostering and encouraging mineral exploration in an environmentally sound manner and best responds to issues raised by the public state tribal and local governments Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to the greatest degree of all the action alternatives for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) for drill sites located near the wilderness by requiring maximum limits for sound levels reaching the wilderness OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Four other alternatives were considered in detail and are discussed below A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in the FEIS Chapter 2 All of the action alternatives included the same project proposals for minerals exploration activities therefore the reasons why an alternative was not selected relates to exploration activities that resulted in different effects between alternatives in this case primarily impacts from drilling noise
Alternative 1 No Action Under the No Action alternative current Forest Service management plans would continue to guide management of the Project Area however none of the 29 prospecting permits would be consented to by the Forest Service or approved by the BLM and mineral exploration activities for federal minerals in these permit areas would not occur The No Action alternative does not achieve the purpose and need displayed in the FEIS Section 16 Additionally the No Action Alternative would result in no economic activity from minerals exploration or any economic activity or jobs that would occur under the action alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 2 was the modified proposed action Alternative 2 does not provide any stipulations to reduce noise impacts and thus does not address the issue raised during scoping which prompted the Forest Service to develop alternatives in the EIS
Alternative 3 Alternative 3 included a requirement for mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs This alternative has the advantage of requiring consistent application of noise mitigation regardless of location which would reduce impacts for both known receptor locations such as campgrounds and residences and unknown receptors in more remote areas which might be used by recreationists However this alternative addresses noise at the drill rig (source) and does not address the noise at the receptor which is the issue raised by the public Alternative 4 includes limits on sound levels reaching the receptor and that approach more directly addresses the experience of the receptor
Alternative 5 Alternative 5 included mitigation to reduce sound levels produced at all drill rigs in the same manner as Alternative 3 It also required that drill rigs operate only during the period of lower recreation use on the SNF (November 1 through April 30) when frozen ground conditions and seasonality of wildlife activity limits impacts Based on past minerals exploration practices on
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
5
the SNF and due to soils stipulations that require operations on frozen ground in some cases all of the action alternatives would have the majority of activities conducted during the winter Thus there would be minimal difference based on season of operation between Alternative 5 and Alternatives 2-4 While Alternative 5 would avoid noise impacts to recreation users and residents during the summer months noise impacts to winter recreation users would increase under this alternative Ambient sound levels in winter may be somewhat lower than summer which would render noise impacts from drilling more noticeable Alternative 5 would also limit the window of opportunity to operate and significantly prolong the overall time to complete the project activities RATIONALE Factors considered in this decision include
1) The Federal government has a policy of fostering and encouraging private enterprise in the development of a stable domestic minerals industry and the orderly and economic development of domestic resources
2) The BLM has a minerals policy that ldquoexcept for Congressional withdrawals public lands shall remain open and available for mineral exploration and development unless withdrawal or other administrative action is clearly justified in the national interestrdquo This decision is consistent with the BLM policy to allow prospecting on and exploring for leasable hardrock mineral deposits on public and other Federal lands where the BLM does not know a valuable mineral deposit currently exists while protecting both surface and subsurface resources and complying with coordination requirements and responsibilities of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and the 43 CFR 3500 regulations
3) The Forest Service has a program policy for minerals management that states ldquothe availability of minerals and energy resources within the National Forests and Grasslands significantly affects the development economic growth and defense of the Nation The mission of the Forest Service in relation to minerals management is to encourage facilitate and administer the orderly exploration development and production of mineral and energy resources on National Forest System lands to help meet the present and future needs of the Nationrdquo
4) Minerals exploration may be conducted in an environmentally sound manner with the application of stipulations shown in the Forest Service ROD Attachment 2 along with State of Minnesota rules for exploratory drilling Therefore the decision to issue the permits subject to the prospecting permit stipulations (Forest Service ROD Attachment 2) will not result in any undue or unnecessary environmental degradation
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd Op Plan Approval1 message
Storzer Mark ltmstorzer Thu Jan 3 2013 at 121 PMTo Kurt J Wadzinski ltkwadzins
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Storzer Mark ltmstorzerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 304 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Theresa Bodus lttbodus
Theresa
See what you think about this
Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Gettinger Dean ltdgettingerDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 217 PMSubject Fwd Op Plan ApprovalTo Mark Storzer ltmstorzer
See what you think now
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Anderson Randall ltr35anderDate Wed Jan 2 2013 at 208 PMSubject Op Plan ApprovalTo Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger
Dean -
I added two sentences from the introductory section of the BLM ROD and then accepted changes I alsomoved the second from the last paragraph under rationale further up in the section so that it didnt seem like anafterthought
Other than that I think it looks pretty good
R -
-- Randall C AndersonAFM Natural ResourcesBLM-ES Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 200Milwaukee WI 53202
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
(414) 297-4421
-- Dean GettingerAssociate Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhoneFax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
-- Mark StorzerNortheastern States Field ManagerMilwaukee WIPhone Fax (414) 297-4409
This message (which includes any attachments) is intended only for the designated recipients(s) It may containconfidential information or proprietary information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherconfidentiality protections If you are not a designated recipient you may not review use copy or distribute thismessage If you receive this in error please notify the sender by reply email and delete this message Thankyou
Twin Metals Operating Plan Approval (MNES-01352)_Rev2 (3)docx27K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
hard rock mining in Minnesota4 messages
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Hello Kurt
Ive been invited to a meeting thursday with Eastern States ASD Tony Herrel about hard rock mining and NEPAin Minnesota Beyond that I have no clue whats going on Can you give me the big picture
Thank you
Andrew Tkach
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 1259 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkachCc Randall Anderson ltr35ander
Hi Andrew right now I am kind of on the periphery of what is going on up in Minnesota but I can give you a summary ofwhat has happened to this point roughly In 2012 the BLM and Forest Service both issued Records of Decisionapproving 28 prospecting permits for hardrock mining in the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota There areseveral companies that were granted these permits (along with approved operating plans) but the one company with themost permits is Twin Metals Minnesota (TMM) Thus far the NEPA that has been completed was for the EIS for theprospecting permits I have not been involved with some of the latest meetings with TMM so I do not know whatadditional NEPA is being contemplated for their plans They do have more advanced plans for what they want to dogoing forward and our management staff here has been meeting with them regularly since the prospecting permits wereapproved last year If you need more information beyond this I can forward your question to Theresa Bodus who is ourAFM for Minerals She has been most intimately involved with our discussions with TMM Just let me know
Hope this helps
Kurt[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax 4142974405kwadzinsb
Tkach Andrew ltatkach Tue Jun 4 2013 at 118 PMTo Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
This helps Now I have an idea of where things are in the process and who the players are and timeframe Illget back to you after the meeting Thursday Thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Jun 4 2013 at 233 PMTo Tkach Andrew ltatkach
Hey no problem Andrew anytime[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Fwd FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNRResponse1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Thu Aug 1 2013 at 1157 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Henderson Joe (MPCA) ltjoehendersonDate Thu Aug 1 2013 at 921 AMSubject FW RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR ResponseTo Lyon John ltjlyon Dean email Gettinger ltdgettinger Theresa Boduslttbodus Tony Herrell lttherrell
All
Attached is the initial MNDNR EAW review letter to TMM If you have questions feel free to contact me Iassume that this will come up at out call today
Talk to you soon
Joe
From Doperalski Melissa (DNR) Sent Wednesday July 31 2013 318 PMTo dcoltonCc aleavasayreSubject RE TMM Bulk Sample Project EAW Initial Data Submittal - MDNR Response
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has reviewed the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) Initial Data Submitted received July 1 2013 for the Twin Metals Minnesota LLC (TMM) BulkSample Project located in Lake County Minnesota The MDNR has determined at this time that the EAW DataSubmittal is incomplete Details of the review and information needs are included in the attached letter A papercopy will be sent in the mail I will be contacting you within the next week to schedule a meeting to discussthese comments in more detail Please contact me with any questions
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Sincerely
Melissa Doperalski
Melissa Doperalski
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Review Planning Director
500 Lafayette Road St Paul MN 55155
melissadoperalski
-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
20130337 TMM Initial Data Submittal EAW_MDNR letter_31July2013_Finalpdf2876K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
Here is the CX for Dean to sign3 messages
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 308 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins
Can you please check this and have Dean sign it for the activities that are proposed next week
Thanks
Theresa
-- Theresa M BodusAFM - MineralsBureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Ave Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202Work
NSFO CX Template 9-2013 Small Pit Samples Minnesotadocx105K
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Fri Sep 6 2013 at 329 PMTo Bodus Theresa lttbodus
Theresa I am leaving now I gave Dean the portions he needs to sign so I will give it to you early next week
kw[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
Office Fax kwadzins
Bodus Theresa lttbodus Fri Sep 6 2013 at 352 PM
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
To Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins
great thanks[Quoted text hidden]
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
NEPA Recommendations for Twin Metals Minnesota1 message
Gettinger Dean ltdgettinger Fri Sep 6 2013 at 138 PMTo John Lyon ltjlyon Tony Herrell lttherrellCc Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Randy Anderson ltr35ander Theresa Boduslttbodus gt
Dear JohnAttached is our memo with our recommendation regarding what level of NEPA should be conducted related toboth the Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewals and the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling project
RespectfullyDean-- Dean GettingerActing Field ManagerNortheastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200Milwaukee WI 53202
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352docx16K
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
MEMORANDUM
To State Director Eastern States Office
From Acting Field Manager Northeastern States Field Office
Subject Recommendation for NEPA Analysis Twin Metals Minnesota Lease Renewal and the Inco Shaft
Bulk Sample project
Date September 6 2013
Lease Renewal
After reviewing the status of all previously conducted NEPA compliance for the area in question it is my
recommendation to conduct an environmental assessment (EA) for the renewal of Twin Metals
Minnesota leases MNES-001352 and MNES-001353 The original leases were approved in 1966 prior to
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the lands involved
have never been fully evaluated to determine the environmental impacts of potential ground disturbing
activities on resource values such as vegetation water and recreation To this point for this lease
NEPA documents have authorized
mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities to collect geologic information
and drill core samples (Kawishiwi EA)
approval of prospecting permits (Hardrock Prospecting Permits Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS))
several modifications to existing operating plans approved through Categorical
Exclusion (CX) documents
An Environmental Assessment for the lease renewal will provide the Eastern States with a defensible
analysis document The EA would inform our lease renewal process allowing us to properly design
mitigation measures and stipulations attached to the lease Although regulations do allow us to apply at
Categorical Exclusion to the lease renewal process given the lack of previous NEPA analysis the BLM
would have no real defensible analysis in which to base our lease renewal conditions and stipulations
Inco Shaft Bulk Sample Project
The above described NEPA Analysis situation applies to the proposed Inco Shaft Bulk Sample project
Given the lack of applicable analysis and concerns expressed by the US Forest Service State of
Minnesota and BLM NSFO staff over noise transportation related issues and water related issues it is
our intention to conduct an Environmental Assessment prior to approving the proposed activity related
to the Inco Shaft Bulk Sampling
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
questions and an alert about Twin Metals EAs2 messages
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 19 2013 at 1241 PMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzinsbCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Rebecca Metzltbmetz
1 Kurt since our Twin Metals EAs will tier to the FEIS can we reasonably assume unless there areimportant new developments that we can analyze the same issues and resources that the FEISanalyzed
2 Jarrod a major issue that has implications for many of the resources analyzed in the FEIS notablyrecreation is noise Assuming that youll be covering recreation in the EAs it would make sense for youto deal with the noise section as well Before I had this wonderful time-saving (for me) thought I plowedinto the FEIS and read every last word of the noise section taking copious notes including severalquestions that I plan to ask whoever wrote this section Ill go ahead and ask those questions tosomeone at the Forest Service since youll be out and we can talk when you return about who does whatwith the various sections
3 In our meeting earlier this week we asked Theresa to ask Twin Metals for their GIS data I am going toask the Forest Service for their data as well when I call them for clarification on a few points in the FEIS I will let you all know where Im putting the data that I receive from them
Safe travels to the roadies-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins Tue Sep 24 2013 at 142 PMTo Strohl Derek ltdstrohl gtCc Jarrod Kellogg ltjkellogg gt Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Theresa Boduslttbodus gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder gt Rebecca Metzltbmetz gt
Derek in response to your question 1 above yes we can reasonably assume that we will analyze the same issues andresources as the FEIS did as I dont really know of any new developments or changes to impacts that were not alreadycovered in the FEIS Unless Theresa knows of any information that I or any of the rest of us dont have that is[Quoted text hidden]-- Kurt WadzinskiPlanning amp Environmental Coordinator
BLM-Eastern StatesNortheastern States Field Office626 East Wisconsin AvenueSuite 200Milwaukee Wisconsin 53202
OfficeFax 4142974405
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
kwadzins
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzinsblmgovgt
Twin Metals lease renewal EA template1 message
Strohl Derek ltdstrohl Thu Sep 26 2013 at 1001 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins Theresa Bodus lttbodus Jeffrey Nolder ltjnolder Randall Anderson ltr35ander gt Dean Gettinger ltdgettinger gt Jarrod Kelloggltjkellogg gt Ryan Hathaway ltrhathaway gt Rebecca Metz ltbmetz gt
All
Ive formatted a template for the Twin Metals lease renewal EA Heres a summary of what I done did to keep inmind as you edit it
I copied the headings for the natural resource sections from the EIS which does not contain some of ourusual sections (Hazardous Wastes for example) and I added headings for climate change and special-status (short for threatened endangered candidate thinking-about-becoming-candidate or otherwideprotected under some silly-old legislation like those spoiled eagles who cant be satisfied with just theEndangered Species Act and who think theyre the center of the universe) species since they arerequired by BLM policyIve used a portion of Jeffs introduction for the Need for the Proposed Action and the rest of his intro inthe intro to Chapter 2I moved Jeffs references to the references section Jeff please format the website reference to matchthe style weve used in other EAs when referencing websites and if practical add the references inparentheses to the geology section where they applyIve entered suggested names of specialists in the ID Team table The resources in question are thosethat are roughly related to recreation which Jarrod and I will have to fight overI took a cue from the EIS and added a section called Actions to Be Included in the Cumulative EffectsAnalysis In this section well list and describe all previous actions and those future actions which areplanned or permitted that will affect the resources that we are analyzing It seems like a good idea tostate these up front and to refer to that list as we analyze cumulative effects in the respective resource-specific sections Try saying respective resource-specific sections five times fast
The EA is where we put all our in-process EAs Happy editing
Derek-- Derek Strohl Natural Resources SpecialistBureau of Land Management Eastern States Northeastern States Field Office626 E Wisconsin Ave Ste 202 Milwaukee WI 53202
(ph)414-297-4409 (fax)
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Wadzinski Kurt ltkwadzins gt
Re Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lake2 messages
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Bill latady ltblatadyBcc kwadzins
Bill-
Thanks for the letter As you guessed Im back in the office
So a couple of things-the letter another letter coming and a trip next week because me and Derek are planningto still go up there
Your letter-the lease renewal since it does not have any ground disturbance associated with it (see below forthe next letter) will go through at the end of the year unless something happens to cause a change You didmention interviewing elders with is great because
Next Letter-I hope to be getting another letter to you within the next few days regarding a hydrogeologic study This will occur on both SNF and private surface but the letter from the BLM will only be for private surfacemostly land belonging to the South Kawishiwi Association The Superior sent Bois Forte a preliminary letter toyou back in December 2012 on the project Regarding the private land portion I believe that it will be 9drillholes Obviously this one will require ground disturbance but is a separate action from the lease renewal
Next Week-Derek and I are planning to go your direction to do our preliminary visit to the lease renewal area Theweather does not seem conducive to going out on the lakes but Derek is wondering if you and the Bands boatshould the weather be decent be available to visit the toilets on Black Duck Also I was planning to visit thesite that I recently found on the west end of Birch Lake and wondering if you would like to tag along Right nowwe will be heading that way Tuesday so Wednesday and Thursday would be the site visit and possible islandhopping
So that is what Im looking at on this end Please let me know how things are looking on your end and also ifyou have any questionscommentsconcerns Ill be in all day today and tomorrow
And congratulations on your promotion
Jarrod
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
On Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PM Bill latady ltblatady gt wrote
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg Thu Oct 17 2013 at 934 AMTo Kurt Wadzinski ltkwadzins gt
Letter from Bois Forte for Minnesota lease renewals
Jarrod X KelloggBureau of Land ManagementNortheastern States Field OfficeMilwaukee WI
(desk)414-297-4409 (fax)jkellogg
Illegemiti non carborundum
---------- Forwarded message ----------From Bil l latady ltblatady gtDate Thu Oct 3 2013 at 141 PMSubject Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch LakeTo Kellogg Jarrod ltjkellogg gt
Jarrod
Please disregard the earlier email response on this project This response is free of typos
Bill
Twin Metals Mineral Lease RenewalBirch Lakedoc297K
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
October 2 2013 Jarrod X Kellogg Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Northeastern States Field Office 626 E Wisconsin Avenue Suite 200 Milwaukee WI 53202-4617
RE Renewal of Two Hardrock Mineral Leases Lake County MN
Dear Jarrod This letter is in response to a request for consultation with the Bois Forte Band from the Bureau of Land Management Eastern States Office on the renewal of two hardrock mineral leases in Lake County Minnesota Band members have treaty reserved rights to hunt fish and gather in ceded territory Both mineral leases are within territory ceded to the United States in 1854 and traditional use areas may be impacted by development and coring Staff reviewed our files and did not find references to cultural or religious places within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) but more extensive review including interviews with elders and traditional practitioners is necessary to determine if coring or development activities will impact areas of cultural and religious importance to the Band A review of this type is time consuming costly and cannot be undertaken in the 30-day time period described in your consultation request letter
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at or blatady
Sincerely Bill Latady Bill Latady Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe
SOL FOIA_4-2-2015
SOL FOIA Request_updated
FW_ Superior ROD - Release Date Update - Thursd
Legal Notice Superior
Legal Notice Superior_9-20-2012
RODnotice001
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral Pros
Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Prospecting
RE_ Final BLM ROD for Federal Hardrock Mineral
Memorandum for Record - NEPA Recommendation MNES-001352
