REGIONAL— What a difference a pandemic makes. Five years ago, the last time that federal officials took public testimony on a proposal to withdraw mineral leasing on a portion of the Superior National Forest, thousands turned out in sometimes raucous events in northern Minnesota to make their case for or against.
This time, the meetings, held virtually over Zoom, wrapped up without the show of force by both sides of the debate.
Instead, individual speakers had their three minutes to state their piece, without the backdrop of boos or applause that frequently accompanied speakers back in 2017, the last time the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management held public meetings on the withdrawal proposal.
While the format was different, the many dozens of speakers who took part sounded familiar themes. Supporters of the withdrawal mostly spoke from personal experience about the ways that the Boundary Waters had touched their lives and the importance of protecting a unique place in America from the threats posed by sulfide mining just upstream of the wilderness.
Opponents of the withdrawal, who mostly represented local government entities or trade unions, spoke of the jobs the mine would create and about the country’s need for the strategic metals the mine would produce, which they argued were necessary for the transition to cleaner sources of energy.
“Human caused climate change poses a real threat,” said Lucas Franco, with a Twin Cities-based construction union. “We need to increase investments in clean energy, and that takes minerals.” Franco urged the federal officials who listened to the nearly three hours of comment on Saturday, to conduct an environmental impact statement on the Twin Metals proposal before deciding on the wisdom of a mineral withdrawal. “We need to let the process play out,” he said.
Ely Mayor Roger Skraba echoed that sentiment, arguing for a review of the Twin Metals project.
“What happened to the process?” Skraba asked. “If they can’t meet the standards, it won’t go. We trust the science, not the political science,” he added.
Ida Rukavina, director of the Range Association of Municipalities and Schools, and daughter of the late and longtime legislator Tom Rukavina, cited all of the modern conveniences, including renewable energy sources, that rely on the minerals that could be mined along the Duluth Complex, which includes deposits identified by Twin Metals. “Withdrawal gets us no closer to addressing climate change,” she said.
Yet, the mine would do little to address climate change or provide strategic metals for domestic consumption, according to Becky Rom, of Ely, who spoke as well on Saturday. Rom noted that Antofagasta, parent company to Twin Metals, ships all of its copper concentrates to China, where the product ends up on the world market, rather than reserved for domestic use in the U.S. “We get the majority of our nickel from Canada, which has 28 times the U.S. reserves,” she said. “And Australia has enough cobalt in one mine to supply the U.S. for 270 years.”
At the same time, Samantha Chadwick, a frequent Boundary Waters visitor, noted that thousands of jobs already depend on the Boundary Waters. “That’s part of the current economy and the area’s future as long as the Boundary Waters is protected.”
It was a theme echoed by speaker Lincoln Fetcher, who noted that mining is becoming increasingly automated, which will limit the jobs that any mine creates. “The current economy supports many more jobs than mining will,” he said.
“Mining jobs come and go, mostly go, leaving broken communities in their wake,” said Daniel Iverson, an Ely area property owner, picking up on that same theme.
But some questioned whether an economy built on outdoor recreation can really provide for families. “Tourism jobs don’t pay the bills,” said Joel Smith, a trades union member. “The economy of northern Minnesota depends on mining.”
Still others thought the decision on the management of lands in the Superior National Forest should be left to local residents. “My family gets the privilege to go to the state fair once a year,” said Dan Snidarich, with the union of Operating Engineers. “It doesn’t mean I have the right to tell them how to live. This is a local issue,” he said.
Skraba agreed that local residents should get a bigger voice, but that idea didn’t sit well with state Rep. Jim Davnie, a metro area legislator, who said everyone, regardless of where they live, should have an equal voice in the management of federal lands.
“As a legislator I can attest that the state’s mining regulations are not up to the task of assessing and managing the threat that copper sulfide mining poses to this unique ecosystem,” he said.
Lawson Gerdes, a retired ecologist, who lives near the proposed mine site, said the withdrawal issue goes well beyond the study of a single mine proposal. “An EIS does not cut it,” she said. “This is not about one mine.” Gerdes described the region under consideration as a critical part of a two million-acre landscape of near-boreal forest that grows more structurally diverse as it ages, helping to retain soils and sequestering carbon. “This is a fully functioning landscape ecosystem of exceptional high quality and is the foundation of all that is at risk from sulfide ore mining,” she said.
Of the dozens of speakers at the hearing on Saturday, about two-thirds spoke in favor of the withdrawal, with the rest opposed. Speakers were selected randomly from the larger number of registrants who had sought to speak.
The last of three hearings on the issue was held Tuesday night, and the public comment phase of the withdrawal process closed on Wednesday, Jan. 19. If the withdrawal is eventually approved, a decision that would most likely come in 2023, it would prohibit mineral leasing on approximately 225,000 acres of the Superior National Forest located upstream of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, within the Rainy River watershed.
A withdrawal, by law, could last no longer than 20 years. It would only affect federal mineral rights within the designated area and would not prevent mineral leasing on lands owned by the state of Minnesota or private parties. If approved, the withdrawal would not cancel legitimate existing federal mineral leases, which means it may or may not impact the validity of the two federal mineral leases currently held by Twin Metals. Those leases are the subject of ongoing review by the Biden administration.