This bill includes similar provisions for the application for an iron mining
permit, except that the applicant may provide evidence that the applicant will apply,
rather than has applied, for necessary zoning approvals and other approvals issued
by DNR.

---

The required content of the mining plan for iron mining under the bill is similar
to that required under current statutes and DNR rules. The required content of the
reclamation plan for iron mining is also similar to that required under current law.

DNR's current rules require the applicant for a metallic mining permit to show
that the mining and reclamation will comply with specified minimum standards.
The bill requires showings by the applicant for an iron mining permit that differ in
some ways from DNR's rules. For example, the rules require a demonstration that
water runoff from the mining site will be managed so as to prevent soil erosion to the
extent practicable, flooding, damage to agricultural lands or livestock, damage to
wild animals, pollution of ground or surface waters, damage to public health, and
threats to public safety. The bill requires a showing that water runoff from an iron
mining site will be managed in compliance with any approval that regulates
construction site erosion control or storm water management.

Current law requires DNR to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for every proposed metallic mine. An EIS contains detailed information about
the environmental impact of a proposed project, including any adverse
environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented,
alternatives to the proposed project, the beneficial aspects of the proposal, and the
economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. For a metallic mining
project, current law requires a description of significant long-term and short-term
impacts, including impacts after the mining has ended, on tourism, employment,
schools, social services, the tax base, the local economy, and "other significant
factors."

This bill requires DNR to prepare an EIS for every proposed iron mine. The bill
requires DNR to include a description of significant impacts on most of the same
matters as under current metallic mining law.

Under current law, when a person applies for a permit or other approval for
which DNR is required to complete an EIS, DNR is generally authorized to require
the applicant to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) that discloses
environmental impacts of the proposed project to assist DNR in preparing the EIS.
Current law authorizes DNR to enter into an agreement with a person considering
applying to DNR for approval of a project that is large, complex, or environmentally
sensitive to provide preapplication services necessary to evaluate the environmental
impact of the project and to expedite the anticipated preparation of an EIS for the
project.

The bill requires the applicant for a mining permit to prepare an EIR.

The bill requires the applicant for a mining permit to submit the EIR with the
application for the mining permit.

Current law authorizes DNR to conduct the processes related to an EIS jointly
with other agencies who have responsibilities related to a proposed project.

The bill requires DNR to conduct its environmental review process for a
proposed iron mine jointly with other state agencies and requires the preparation of

---

one joint EIS. The bill requires DNR to conduct its environmental review process
jointly with any federal or local agency that consents to a joint process.

Current law requires DNR to hold at least one informational meeting on a
preliminary environmental report for a mining project before it issues the EIS. This
bill does not require such an informational meeting.

Current law requires DNR to hold a hearing on an application for a metallic
mining permit. The hearing includes both a contested case hearing, with testimony
under oath and the opportunity for cross-examination, and a public informational
hearing. The law requires that the hearing cover the EIS and cover all other
approvals issued by DNR that are required for the mining project, to the extent
possible. Under current law, the provisions related to notice, hearing, and comment
in the metallic mining law apply to any other needed approval, unless the applicant
fails to make an application for an approval in time for it to be considered at the
hearing on the mining permit.

This bill requires DNR to hold a public informational hearing for a proposed
iron mining project. The hearing does not include a contested case hearing. The
hearing must cover the mining permit, the EIS, and all other approvals issued by
DNR that are required for the mining project, unless the application for an approval
is filed too late to allow the approval to be considered at the mining hearing. Under
the bill, the provisions related to notice, hearing, and comment in the iron mining law
apply to any other needed approval.

Current law does not specify a time, after the application for a mining permit
is filed, within which DNR must act on a metallic mining permit application. It does
require the mining hearing to be held between 120 days and 180 days after DNR
issues the EIS and requires DNR to act on the permit within 90 days after the
completion of the record for the public hearing.

The bill requires DNR to act on an application for an iron mining permit no
more than 360 days after the application is considered to be complete. Under the bill,
if the applicant submits the application for another approval within 60 days after the
application for the mining permit is considered to be complete, DNR must also act
on the application for that approval by the 360-day deadline. If the applicant files
the application for another approval more than 60 days after the application for the
mining permit is considered to be complete, the deadline for DNR's action on the
approval is extended by the number of days the application is late.

If DNR does not act within the deadline for acting on the application for an iron
mining permit, the application is automatically approved.

Under the bill, the application for a mining permit is considered to be complete
on the 30th day after DNR receives it, unless, before that day DNR provides the
applicant with written notification that the application does not include a mining
plan, reclamation plan, or waste site feasibility study and plan of operation that
contain the types of information required under the bill or that the applicant has not
submitted an EIR. DNR may not consider the quality of the information provided
in determining whether the application is complete.

---

The bill authorizes DNR to request additional information needed to process
the application for a mining permit after the application is considered to be complete,
but it may not delay the determination that the application is complete based on a
request for additional information.

Current law requires DNR to deny an application for a metallic mining permit
for a proposed surface mine if the site is unsuitable for surface mining. A site is
unsuitable for surface mining if the surface mining may reasonably be expected to
destroy or damage either: 1) habitats required for the survival of endangered species
of vegetation or wildlife that cannot be firmly reestablished elsewhere; or 2) unique
features of the land, as determined by state or federal designation, as, for example,
wilderness areas, national or state parks, archaeological areas, and other lands of
a type specified by DNR by rule, as unique or unsuitable for surface mining. DNR
has designated more than 150 specific scientific areas for the purposes of the
determination of unsuitability.

This bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit under
the same standards for unsuitability as under current law, except that
archaeological areas and other areas designated by DNR as being unique or
unsuitable for surface mining are not considered for the purposes of determining
unsuitability.

Current law requires DNR to deny an application for a mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause any of the following: 1) hazards
resulting in irreparable damage to specified kinds of structures, such as residences,
schools, or commercial buildings, to public roads, or to other public property
designated by DNR by rule, if the damage cannot be prevented under the mining
laws, avoided by removal from the area of hazard, or mitigated by purchase or by
obtaining the consent of the owner; 2) irreparable environmental damage to lake or
stream bodies despite adherence to the metallic mining laws, unless DNR has
authorized the activity that causes the damage; 3) landslides or substantial
deposition in stream or lake beds that cannot be feasibly prevented; or 4) the
destruction or filling in of a lake bed.

The bill requires DNR to deny an application for an iron mining permit if the
mining operation is reasonably expected to cause any of the following: 1) hazards
resulting in irreparable damage to specified kinds of structures, such as residences,
schools, or commercial buildings, or to public roads, but not to other public property
designated by DNR by rule, if the damage cannot be prevented under the mining
laws, avoided by removal from the area of hazard, or mitigated by purchase or by
obtaining the consent of the owner; or 2) irreparable environmental damage to lake
or stream bodies despite adherence to the metallic mining laws, unless DNR has
authorized the activity that causes the damage. As to the bases described in 3) or 4)
above the bill requires DNR to deny the application unless the activity or occurrence
is authorized by DNR under an applicable approval such as a wetland water quality
certification, or a permit for a navigable water activity.

---

As under the current metallic mining laws, the bill requires DNR to deny a
mining permit if the applicant has violated and continues to fail to comply with this
state's mining laws. As also provided under current metallic mining law, the bill
contains requirements for the denial of an iron mining permit based on the failure
to reclaim mining sites and based on criminal convictions for violations of
environmental laws in the course of mining in the United States by persons involved
in the proposed iron mining.

Under current law, if none of the grounds for denial of the application for a
metallic mining permit apply, DNR must issue the mining permit if it finds the
following: 1) the mining plan and reclamation plan are reasonably certain to result
in reclamation of the mining site as required by current law and DNR has approved
the mining plan; 2) the proposed mining operation will comply with all applicable air,
groundwater, surface water, and solid and hazardous waste management statutes
and rules; 3) the proposed mine will not endanger public health, safety, or welfare;
4) the proposed mine will result in a net positive economic impact in the area
expected to be most impacted by the mine; and 5) the proposed mining operation
conforms with all applicable zoning ordinances.

Under this bill, the standards for approval of an iron mining permit differ in
some respects from the standards under current law. Under the bill, if none of the
grounds for denial of the application for an iron mining permit apply, DNR must
issue an iron mining permit if it finds the following: 1) the mining plan and
reclamation plan are reasonably certain to result in reclamation of the mining site
as required by the provisions of this bill; 2) the applicant has committed to
conducting the proposed iron mining in compliance with the mining permit and any
other approvals issued by DNR; 3) the proposed iron mining is not likely to result in
substantial adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare; 4) the proposed iron
mine will result in a net positive economic impact in the area expected to be most
impacted by the mine; 5) the applicant will obtain all applicable zoning approvals;
and 6) the waste site feasibility study and plan of operation comply with the
provisions of this bill.

Currently, any person aggrieved by a decision of DNR under the metallic
mining laws may obtain a contested case administrative hearing under this state's
administrative procedure laws.

Under this bill, no person is entitled to a contested case hearing on a decision
by the DNR under the iron mining laws or a decision by DNR on any environmental
approval needed for iron mining or bulk sampling. Judicial review of such a decision,
on the administrative record before DNR, is the exclusive method for challenging the
decision.

Current law authorizes citizen suits against a person alleged to be in violation
of the metallic mining laws and against DNR when there is alleged to be a failure of
DNR to perform a duty under those laws.

The bill does not provide for citizen suits related to iron mining.

This bill makes various changes in current law relating to iron mining and
impacts to wetlands and establishes different requirements than those found under
current law. All of the changes explained below regarding wetlands apply to
wetlands that are impacted by iron mining.

Under the current permitting process there are two permitting procedures for
discharging dredged or fill material into a wetland depending on whether the
wetland is subjected to federal jurisdiction. Under federal law, activities involving
the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters subject to federal jurisdiction
must comply with certain guidelines contained in regulations promulgated by the
federal Environmental Protection Agency in order for a federal permit to be issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). Wetlands are usually the type of waters
involved (federal wetlands). Wetlands that are exempt from federal jurisdiction are
those that are nonnavigable and isolated, intrastate waters. Current state law
regulates discharges and other activities in these wetlands (nonfederal wetlands).

Current law relating to wetlands also makes a distinction between wetlands
that are in, or in close proximity to, an area of special natural resource interest
(ASNRI wetlands) and wetlands that are outside these areas. Current law defines
"an area of special natural resource interest" as being an area that has significant
ecological, cultural, aesthetic, educational, recreational, or scientific values and
specifically lists certain areas, including Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, state
forests, and state parks.

Under current law, before ACE may issue a federal permit, DNR must issue a
water quality certification that certifies that the discharge complies with state water
quality standards applicable to wetlands. For a discharge into nonfederal wetlands,
DNR must issue a water quality certification that certifies that the discharge
complies with these water quality standards. In issuing water quality certification
for both federal wetlands and nonfederal wetlands, DNR may impose conditions that
must be met as part of the water quality certification.

This bill limits DNR's authority in imposing conditions for federal permits as
part of the water quality certification. If DNR determines that implementation of the
federal compensatory mitigation requirements will offset any significant adverse
impact to the wetlands or if for federal ASNRI wetlands avoidance and minimization
of adverse impacts has occurred to the extent practicable and any remaining
significant adverse impacts are offset by compensation or mitigation, DNR may not
impose any additional conditions. If DNR does not make this determination, DNR
may impose only the conditions necessary to offset significant adverse impacts that
are not offset by the federal compensatory mitigation requirements. The bill also
provides that DNR may not increase the number of acres to be mitigated under the
federal compensatory mitigation requirements.

For issuing a wetland water quality certification for nonfederal wetlands, if
DNR determines that impacts to the wetland will be avoided or minimized to the
extent practicable, any remaining impacts to nonfederal wetlands or an area of
special natural resource interest, may not be used as a basis for denying certification

---

if any remaining significant adverse impacts to the wetland or an area of special
natural resource interest will be offset by compensation or mitigation. Under the
bill, DNR must issue water quality certification for nonfederal wetlands if DNR
determines that all practicable measures will be taken to minimize the adverse
impacts to wetlands and any remaining significant adverse impacts are offset
through compensation or mitigation.

The bill requires that an applicant for a wetland water quality certification for
a nonfederal wetland submit a siting analysis as to various configurations for the
iron mining site to DNR for review. These are limited to configurations associated
with the proposed areas of iron deposits to be mined and areas contiguous to these
deposits. In reviewing the analysis, DNR must recognize limitations associated with
the proposed locations for iron mining, the need for waste sites and processing
facilities to be contiguous to the location of the iron deposits, and the presumption
that nonfederal wetlands will be impacted. If it is impracticable to avoid an impact
or use of a nonfederal wetland, the applicant shall identify in the analysis the
configurations that would result in impacts to the fewest acres. DNR then
determines which configuration will affect the fewest acres and evaluates how that
configuration will impact the functional values and water quality of the nonfederal
wetland.

Under rules promulgated by DNR, the state wetland water quality standards
require that various functional values of the wetlands be protected from adverse
impacts. These functional values include providing protection from flooding,
recharging groundwaters, providing habitat for wildlife, and providing protection to
shorelines from erosion. Current law also sets forth criteria to be used to assure the
maintenance or enhancement of these functional values. These criteria include
requiring that certain solids, debris, or toxic substances be absent. This bill
incorporates all of the functional values and criteria that are contained in the DNR
rules for water quality certifications for wetlands. The wetland water quality
standards under the bill require that the impacts must be minimized and that any
remaining significant impacts be offset by compensation or mitigation. The bill also
requires that in evaluating the significant adverse impacts, DNR must compare the
functional values of the wetlands that will be impacted by the mining site with other
wetlands and water bodies in the region.

Under current law, DNR is authorized, but is not required, to consider
mitigation in determining whether to grant a water quality certification or other
permit or approval affecting wetlands. Under current law, wetland mitigation
consists of a project that restores, enhances, or creates (improves) a wetland to offset
adverse impacts to other wetlands or that uses credits from a wetlands mitigation
bank. A wetlands mitigation bank is a system of accounting for wetland loss that
includes one or more sites where wetlands are improved to provide transferable
credits to be subsequently applied to offset adverse impacts to other wetlands.
Mitigation is based on a ratio of acres improved compared to the number of acres

---

adversely impacted. The bill requires DNR to consider mitigation or compensation
when issuing water quality certifications for both federal and nonfederal wetlands.

Under the bill, compensation allows for the offsetting of adverse impacts to
other water quality functions besides those in wetlands. Compensation may include
projects such as riparian restoration projects and shoreline stabilization projects if
such projects are at locations that are more than one-half mile from the mining site.

Under current law, the ratio of acres for purposes of mitigation requires that 1.5
acres of wetlands be improved to every one acre that is adversely impacted with
limited exception allowing the ratio to be one acre to one acre. The bill specifies that
the ratio for mitigation may not exceed 1.5 acres. Under current law, in calculating
the number of credits a person will receive in implementing mitigation, each acre
restored receives one credit, the range of credits for each acre enhanced is from no
credits to one credit, and each acre created receives one-half credit with a limited
exception. Under the bill, each acre restored, enhanced, or created receives at least
one credit.

Current law prohibits DNR from considering wetlands mitigation in reviewing
whether to grant a permit or other approval for a project that adversely affects an
area of special natural resource interest or an ASNRI wetland. Under the bill,
mitigation and compensation to offset significant adverse impacts to these areas and
ASNRI wetlands are allowed.

Under current law, mitigation must occur within one-half mile of the impacted
wetland (on-site). If DNR determines that it is not practicable or ecologically
preferable that the mitigation occur on-site, DNR shall allow mitigation to be
preformed as near as practicable to the location of the adversely impacted wetland.
Under the bill, if it is not practicable or ecologically preferable to conduct
compensation or mitigation at an on-site location or if there is insufficient wetland
acreage on-site, off-site compensation or mitigation may be performed. This may
include purchases of credits from a mitigation bank located anywhere in the state.
The bill also authorizes other persons to perform compensation or mitigation, subject
to DNR approval.

Under current law, artificial wetlands are exempt from the wetland water
quality standards unless DNR determines significant functional values are present.
This bill exempts these same artificial wetlands from the wetland water quality
standards and eliminates the exception to the exemption for wetlands with certain
significant functional values.

Under current law, certain activities in nonfederal wetlands are exempt from
the water quality certification requirements for wetlands. These include
maintenance of drainage and irrigation ditches, damaged parts of structures that are
in bodies of waters, and maintenance of certain temporary mining roads. Under
current law, these activities lose their exemption under certain circumstances, such
as using a wetland for a use for which it was not previous used, or conducting an
activity that may impair the flow of a body of water. Under the bill, very similar
exemptions apply to iron mining activities. However, the provision regarding losing

---

the exemption does not apply. Instead, the exemptions only apply if the person
conducting the activity minimizes the adverse effect to the environment.

Under current law, for purposes of delineating the boundary of a wetland, DNR
shall use the procedures contained in the wetlands delineation manual published by
the ACE. The bill provides that if the applicant has provided information to DNR
that is identified in the manual as being sufficient for determining where a wetland
is or for delineating a wetland's boundaries, DNR may visit the site to conduct
surveys or gather site-specific data provided that DNR does not discontinue
processing the application to do so.

Current law requires a permit holder to grant DNR an easement to ensure that
an improved wetland is not destroyed or substantially degraded by subsequent
owners. This bill imposes this requirement on persons who receive a water quality
certification and requires DNR to suspend the certification if the permit holder fails
to grant the easement within the time limit set forth in the mining permit.

Under current law, DNR and the Department of Health Services (DHS)
establish groundwater quality standards, consisting of enforcement standards and
preventive action limits, for substances that contaminate groundwater. The
preventive action limit for a substance is 10 percent, 20 percent, or 50 percent of the
enforcement limit depending on the type of substance.

Under this bill, the enforcement standards and preventive action limits
established by DNR and DHS continue to apply to iron mining operations.

Current law generally requires each state regulatory agency, including DNR,
to promulgate rules containing design and operational criteria for facilities and
activities affecting groundwater that are designed, to the extent technically and
economically feasible, to minimize the level of substances in groundwater and to
maintain compliance with preventive action limits, unless compliance with the
preventive action limits is not technically and economically feasible. Current law
requires each regulatory agency to promulgate rules that specify the range of
responses that the regulatory agency may take or that it may require the person
controlling a facility or activity to take if a preventive action limit is attained or
exceeded at what is called a point of standards application. Under current law and
under this bill, any point at which groundwater is monitored is a point of standards
application to determine whether a preventive action limit has been attained or
exceeded.

Current law generally prohibits a regulatory agency from promulgating rules
containing design and operational criteria that allow an enforcement standard to be
exceeded at a point of standards application. Under current law and under this bill,
for determining whether an enforcement standard has been attained or exceeded, a
point of standards application is any point beyond the boundary of the property on
which the regulated facility or activity is located, any point of present groundwater

---

use, and, for certain facilities, such as waste disposal facilities, any point beyond a
three-dimensional design management zone (DMZ) established by DNR by rule.

Under DNR's rules, the horizontal dimensions of a DMZ vary depending on the
type of facility. For a metallic mining waste site, the horizontal distance to the
boundary of the DMZ is generally 1,200 feet from the outer waste boundary or at the
boundary of the property owned or leased by the applicant, whichever distance is
less. For a metallic surface mine, the horizontal distance to the boundary of the DMZ
is generally 1,200 feet from the edge of the mining excavation or at the property
boundary, whichever distance is less. Generally, the smaller the DMZ, the more
likely that a preventive action limit or enforcement standard will be attained or
exceeded at the boundary and the more likely that the operator will be required to
implement a response.

Under this bill, for an iron mining site, the horizontal distance to the boundary
of the DMZ is generally 1,200 feet from the engineered structures of a mining waste
site, including any wastewater and sludge storage or treatment lagoon, the edge of
the mine and adjacent mine mill and ferrous mineral processing and other facilities
or at the property boundary, whichever distance is less.

Under current rules, DNR may reduce the horizontal distance to the boundary
of the DMZ on a metallic mining site if certain conditions are met, but may not
expand it.

Under the bill, DNR may not reduce the horizontal distance to the boundary of
the DMZ on a metallic mining site but may expand it by an additional 1,200 feet in
any direction if DNR determines that preventive action limits and enforcement
standards will be met at the boundary of the expanded DMZ and that preventive
action limits and enforcement standards cannot be met at the boundary of the DMZ
if it is not expanded.

Under DNR's rules, a DMZ extends vertically from the land surface through all
saturated geological formations. Under the bill, the vertical distance to the boundary
of the DMZ on an iron mining site extends no deeper than 1,000 feet into the
Precambrian bedrock or than the final depth of the mining excavation, whichever is
greater.

Currently, for metallic mining waste sites and metallic mines, in addition to the
DMZ, DNR's rules provide for a mandatory intervention boundary that is 150 feet
from the outer waste boundary or the edge of the mine. Under the rules, if a
preventive action limit or an enforcement standard is exceeded beyond the
mandatory intervention boundary, DNR must require a response by the operator.

The bill does not provide a mandatory intervention boundary for an iron mining
site.

Under DNR's groundwater rules, when a preventive action limit is attained or
exceeded at a point of standards application, DNR must determine the appropriate
response, taking into consideration the response proposed by the operator. The
response must be designed and implemented to minimize the concentration of the

---

substance in groundwater at the point of standards application to the extent feasible,
to regain and maintain compliance with the preventive action limit, and to ensure
that the enforcement standard is not attained or exceeded at the point of standards
application. DNR's rules specify a range of responses for when a preventive action
limit is attained or exceeded at a point of standards application, including requiring
a revision of operational procedures and requiring remedial action to restore
groundwater quality.

Under the bill, when a preventive action limit is attained or exceeded at a point
of standards application and the quality of groundwater is statistically significantly
different from the quality of the groundwater unaffected by the iron mining, DNR
must evaluate the range of responses proposed by the operator, including alternate
responses to the responses specified in DNR's rules, and designate the appropriate
response. DNR may determine that no response is necessary if it determines that
the preventive action limit will not be attained or exceeded at any point outside the
DMZ or, in some cases, if the natural concentration of the substance is above the
preventive action limit.

Under DNR's groundwater rules, when an enforcement standard is attained or
exceeded at a point of standards application for a solid or hazardous waste facility,
DNR must require responses as necessary to prevent any new releases of the
substance from traveling beyond the DMZ and to restore the contaminated
groundwater within a reasonable period. When an enforcement standard is attained
or exceeded at a point of standards application for a facility that is not a solid or
hazardous waste facility, DNR must generally prohibit the activity that uses or
produces the substance and require remedial actions, unless it can be shown that an
alternative response will achieve compliance with the enforcement standard at the
point of standards application.

Under the bill, when an enforcement standard is attained or exceeded at a point
of standards application and the quality of groundwater is statistically significantly
different from the quality of the groundwater unaffected by the iron mining, DNR
must evaluate the operator's proposed range of responses and designate an
appropriate response. DNR may not prohibit an activity or require closure of a
mining waste site unless DNR determines that no other remedial action would
prevent the violation of the enforcement standard at the point of standards
application.

Under current law, no person may construct or operate a solid waste disposal
facility, such as a landfill, without the approval of DNR under the solid waste
statutes and rules. The rules under which metallic mining waste facilities are
regulated differ in some ways from the rules for other solid waste facilities.

Under this bill, the current solid waste laws do not apply to iron mining waste
facilities. Instead, the standards for an iron mining waste facility are specified in the
iron mining laws and the process for approving an iron mining waste facility is part
of the process for approving the iron mining permit. Under the bill, if a mining site

---

will include a disposal facility for waste that is not mining waste, such as trash from
an office or cafeteria, the current solid waste laws apply to that disposal facility.

Current law requires DNR to promulgate rules for the location of solid waste
facilities. Unless DNR grants an exemption, as described below (in the section on
exemptions), the rules prohibit the location of a mining waste site in any of the
following areas: 1) within 1,000 feet of a state trunk highway, a state park or scenic
easement or overlook, a scenic or wild river, or a hiking or bike trail, unless the
proposed waste site is visually inconspicuous or is screened; 2) within an area
designated in the statutes as being unsuitable for surface mining, such as a
wilderness area, a wildlife refuge, or a state or national park; 3) within 200 feet of
the property boundary; 4) within a floodplain; 5) within 300 feet of a navigable river
or stream; 6) within 1,000 feet of a lake; or 6) within 1,200 feet of a private or public
water supply well.

This bill includes the same locational limits for an iron mining waste site,
except that it does not prohibit an iron mining waste site from being located within
an area designated in the statutes as being unsuitable for surface mining.