DNR faces appeal over NewRange decision

REGIONAL - New tailings facilities, deeper mine pits, and changes in wastewater handling have made NewRange Copper Nickel’s proposal a different project from the one the state reviewed a decade ago, argues WaterLegacy, a Minnesota environmental advocacy group. Now the group is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to require a new environmental study rather than an update to the old one, as the Department of Natural Resources has proposed.
WaterLegacy has appealed the DNR’s Oct. 8 decision to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, or SEIS, arguing that three new tailings disposal facilities trigger a mandatory requirement for a full EIS.
WaterLegacy’s challenge centers on whether the DNR applied the correct review rules, rather than whether the proposed mine would be environmentally acceptable.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness have also filed appeals, according to WDIO. Those groups and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa joined WaterLegacy in requesting a new EIS in August.
Competing
interpretations
An environmental impact statement examines a proposal’s environmental effects, alternatives, and ways to prevent or reduce harm. The dispute concerns how much of that examination can rest on the EIS completed a decade ago for the different proposal put forward by PolyMet Mining.
A supplemental EIS builds on that work, addressing impacts, alternatives, and protective measures that were not addressed or were inadequately addressed in the original study. It includes public review and comment. The DNR’s decision calls for a notice identifying the scope of the supplemental study, followed by draft and final versions and an agency determination of whether the completed supplement is adequate.
The DNR determined that NewRange’s changes are substantial and could affect the project’s significant environmental impacts. It also identified new information and circumstances requiring additional review.
But the agency concluded that because the proposal qualifies for supplemental review, the rules requiring an full EIS for certain types of projects do not apply.
WaterLegacy argues that the agency has that interpretation wrong. Minnesota’s mandatory EIS categories include construction of a new facility for disposal of tailings, the waste remaining after ore processing. The revised proposal includes three such facilities, the group says. It contends that the supplemental process cannot override that requirement.
Although the proposal would mine the same deposit, WaterLegacy argues that it is effectively a new project. The earlier mine was never built, and major permits were reversed or revoked by the courts or the Army Corps. Water Legacy’s latest appeal suggests the project will continue to face similar scrutiny.
NewRange maintains that the redesign improves the proposal.
“MDNR’s decision followed changes NewRange made to improve the project from both an economic and environmental perspective,” spokesperson Sam McCullough said in a statement to the Timberjay. “We believe the decision was well-reasoned and remain committed to meeting all regulatory requirements.”
A different design
The revised plan would process 40,000 tons of ore daily, up from 32,000, while shortening the proposed operating life from 20 years to 16. A covered conveyor would replace rail transportation between the mine and processing plant.
Instead of depositing tailings atop the tailings basin at the former LTV taconite operation near Hoyt Lakes, the company proposes facilities that include storage in previously mined pits and a new surface facility.
WaterLegacy’s filing also details changes beyond the tailings plan. The proposed west pit would reach 1,000 feet below ground, compared with 630 feet in the earlier design. A permanent waste-rock pile would rise as much as 360 feet above ground, compared with 280 feet previously.
The group argues that deeper pits could increase groundwater pumping and indirect effects on wetlands.
“The NewRange Project may be even worse than the PolyMet plan,” WaterLegacy Executive Director and Counsel Paula Maccabee said in the group’s statement this week announcing the appeal.
According to WaterLegacy’s filing, the company also proposes eliminating the mine-site wastewater treatment facility and collecting contaminated water in an unlined mine pit or ponds before piping it to the processing site. WaterLegacy challenges that approach and other proposed changes in wastewater treatment and storage.
Those allegations support its broader argument that the earlier study cannot adequately serve as the foundation for reviewing the redesigned project.
A missing pollution offset
One change illustrates why WaterLegacy says the consequences reach beyond individual facilities.
The earlier PolyMet plan included capturing and treating polluted seepage from the legacy LTV tailings basin in the Embarrass River watershed. According to WaterLegacy’s filing, the environmental review counted that cleanup as an offset against increased sulfate and mercury pollution from the proposed mine into the Partridge River watershed.
Both rivers feed the St. Louis River.
According to WaterLegacy’s filing, NewRange no longer proposes capturing and treating that legacy seepage. The group argues that removing the cleanup also removes an underlying assumption used to assess pollution farther downstream.
The group contends that the combined effects on downstream water, wild rice, aquatic life, wildlife, and human health therefore require a fresh analysis.
Its filing also argues that court decisions issued since the earlier review have clarified requirements for groundwater pollution and compliance with the Fond du Lac Band’s downstream water-quality standards.
The federal wetlands permit for the earlier proposal was revoked in 2023 after findings that it would violate the Band’s standards. The state mining and wastewater permits were reversed and sent back to the agencies for further proceedings. Those setbacks did not overturn DNR’s earlier determination that the environmental impact statement was adequate.
WaterLegacy’s Nov. 6 statement of the case outlines its arguments for the appeal, with a formal legal brief to follow. The group is seeking a ruling that DNR must require a new EIS, setting the framework for the environmental examination that would inform subsequent permit decisions.