Notes

Notes Introduction

These are my personal notes taken in my words as I perceived them. I took these during all 6 meetings in St. Ignace totally 13 days. These meeting were primarily taped by the DEQ so those tapes are available if you want to confirm or reject my words and try to interpret matters yourself. I know my notes will correspond to those tapes in order of time. My notes are arranged in order of time, by day, either AM or PM and rarely evening.

There are many miss-spelled words and endless incomplete sentences, as such is my style. I was not intending to speak in complete sentences. I only tried to get an idea written down as I heard it… for my way of thinking of things or as to how I perceived what I heard. Later, anywhere from 1 day to 4 days, I would go over my initial notes and expand in writing on what I think I heard.

The small print notes you see are my later expanded thoughts and comments made based on my initial notes. The large print was actually written at rules. I sometimes quote someone exactly but don’t always write it as in such cases I am struggling to get things written. One could check this with the tape. I just wrote what I heard as fast as I could, then I interpreted. I inconsistently show quote marks because the actual quote symbol is a cumbersome thing for me personally and I don’t view much difference between what was said and what I wrote because I can usually tell if there is a difference . Granted it is not exact but it is close and sometimes exact. Granted this is a weakness to my note taking, but I don’t mind. As I said, these meetings were taped by the DEQ, so they are available to you if you want to get the proof. I know they are very close.

My index is extremely useful for finding things. The r or R means rule, numbers 1 to 6 indicate at which rules meetings the note was taken. The p means page of that specific rule meetings’ notes. The # means number which can be found on that page. There were 13 days of meetings, divided into 6 meetings. They started in early January of 2005 and ended in April of 2005. Underlining in the index and the # means an interesting and important statement.

For privacy reasons personal names of non government participants have been removed from these notes. Env = Environmentalists Ind= Industry.



Revised Issues #9 Index

Philosophy Procedural

1. “foster natural resources” from statute “protect the environment”(r5p4#35)
2. Conflict of interest p. 7 #10 (r1p2#6)(r1p3#19)(r1p3#21)(r1p4#22)(r1p6#32)(r1p5#28
3. experts, (r5, p1, #3)(r5p5#41)(r5p6#47)(r5p7#51.5)[r6p4#33] (r3p4#18)[r3p6#35] (r3p7#39)(r4p4#15.5)[r4p3#11.1] [r5p1#3] (r5p3#15) (r1p5#30)(r2p1#2)(r1p1#1)(r1p2#7)(r1p3#14)(r1p4#22) (r6p5#40)(r6p11#92)(r6p8#63)(r6p9#73)[r6p10#77](r6p10#84)
4. poor language of the statute (r5p2#13) “are things definable, Hal asks” (r2p2#6)
5. vague verses clarity or precision
6. Standards, Midwest therefore Wisconsin, 10/10 years (r6p5#37)
See consensus #13
7. Rushing: Move on, shutting of conversation (r5,mp1,#5) Ind. comments; rules completed by Dec 31, or; page 7, #6; (r5,p2, #10)cultural limitations (r5p5#44)(r5p4#28) [r6p6#52](r6p10#82) See consensus #3, (r1p2#8)(r1p4, 5#27)(r1p2#4)(r3p1#8)(r3p5#23)(
8. Fox in the hen house; Ind. gets the last word[r5p7#51] see consensus #8, (r1p3#11) [r3p2#2]
9. Dead Zones[r5p8#65]
10. Fallacy issues: (r5p4#29) History and sulfide mining is different; (r5p4#33) [r6p1#4][r6p2#7][r6p3#19]
11. volunteer, not by industry [r6p3#20] (r5p2#8.5) (r2p1#3)(r3p1#7)[r3p4#19][r3p6#30][r4p6#24]
12. industry not paying costs above minimum (r4p4#14)(r4p4#11.3)[r4p3#7.9]
13. budget crisis (r5p6#46) [r6p2#10][r6p6#52] (r4p5#20)[r4p6#24]
14. level playing field, (r4, p7, 31)(r5p2#14)(r5p5#41)(r5p7#52)(r5p8#59) [r6p3#19][r6p3#17] [r2p3#12] [r3p2#12](r3p7#43)(r4p5#22.5)
15. guidance rules members passing items (r2p2#5)(r2p3#10)
16. opps factor, mistakes, accidents #25 (r6p2#9) (r4p6#25)
17. make sulfide mining up to date regarding policing itself, technological improvements, bringing it into the 21st century (r4p6#27) (r3p6#33)
18. Thinking outside the box (r4p6#26) [r2p2#9] [r3p6#30]
19. pendulum factors, etc (r4p6#28)
20. comparing mining industry to auto industry [r4p6#30] See #8 permitted statute [r6p1#5][r6p2#7][r6p3#17][r6p3#19] (r6p10#83)
21. lack of enthusiasm, (r4, p7#33)[r1p2#9]
22. being fair: (r4, p7, #34)(r5p4#31) [r1[2#9] [r3p3#17] (r4p7#34)
23. Env ’s letter, plus test wells (r1p3#16)
24. opportunity (r6p6#50)
25. lack of knowledge by DEQ r5p1#4, see Env’s letter, see experts #3 above (r5p3#16)(r5p3#20)(r5p4#32)(r5p6#47) [r6p6#52][r6p1#5][r6p10#77] (r1p4#23)(r1p6#32)(see phil #s 2,3)(r1[6#33)([r2[3#11] [r3p3#16][r3p6#35][r5p1#3](r3p7#42)(r4p2#7.1)
26. lack of knowledge by Environmentalists [r5p2#9] (r5p2#15) NERAPA: (r5p5#37) QAQC (r5p5#42)(r5p6#47)[r5p7#51] (r5p8#61) [r6p5#45][r6p3#20](r6p5#44) (r6p7#60)(r6p8#67)(r6p9#71)[r6p9#76](r6p10#87)(r6p11#89) (r2p4#19) (r3p2#14)(r3p4#22)
27. Fed missing it up (r5p2#12)
28. facility a permitted release must not cause a facility (r5p4#26) see baseline #3 [r6p10#86] (see baseline #3)
29. Psychological Blocks: (r5p4#36) Yellow Dog Plains (r6p3#16)[r6p5#46](r6p5#48)(r6p6#51) (r3p3#11)
30. adjudicate (r5p5#39)(r6p2#13)
31. subsidence (r5p7#50)(r5p8#58) (r6p10#85) (r5p1#1.2)
32. superfund [r6p1#3] (see bonding)
33. multiple issues (r6p2#8) (see unknown #6) [r3p4#19]
34. rules verses Kennecott filing permit
35. What happens when oil runs out
36. open process (r6p3#13)(r6p3#18)[r6p4#33] [r2p3#12] (r3p1#3)(r3p6#30)[r3p4#19]
37. Skip verses Hal (r6p3#14)(r6p4#25) (r2p4#20) (r3p1#2)(r3p4#21)[r3p1#6][r3p2#11][r5p1#1]
38. permanent perpetual care [r6p4#27] (r6p10#86)
39. Review/due care (r6p4#28) (see unknown #4)
40. goal/plan (r6p5#42)[r6p5#46] (last 1/2 p5 of rule 6)
41. sarcasm (r6p5#43 (r6p11#88)
42. Statute different, lack of knowledge, (r6p5#47) (r2p4#15) [r4p2#4.9?] (r5p1#5)
43. teeth (r6p8#65)
44. industry must protect environment, see unknown *
45. scope of DEQ [r2p2#9]
46. trust (r2p3#14) (r3p1#5)(r4p1#1.1)(
47. overview (r3p5#27)(r3p7#37)
48. NIMBY (r3p5#28)
49. Reputation (r3p6#31)(r3p7#41)
50. Fear Industry (r3p8#44)(r4p1#0)
51. Badjor Environmentalists (r4p2#7)[r4p2#7.9]
52. Vigorous Communication (r4p3#8)
53. 100% containment (r4p4#13)



LANGUAGE - DEFINITIONS

1. acid rock drainage
2. how do you operate land, you operate a mine 63203 (a)
3. 63205 (c) reasonably minimize
4. dummying down our language
5. effected area: (rules 5, page1,#2) (see SE #18)(r3p5#24)(r5p1#2)
6. significant r5p1#6
7. reclamation: (r5p3#23) mitigation
8. “damages” material (r5p7#49)
9. detection (r6p4#24)
10. reasonable expectation (r3p2#9)
11. Feasible and Prudent (r3p2#13)[r3p3#17]
12. Land use (r4p2#7.3)



ENVIRONMENTAL see baseline

1. ground water
a. inconsistent with US. Congress [r5p3#16]
2. covers and liners (r6p2#6)[r6p2#7](r6p5#41)[r6p5#46] (r4p4#11.2)(r4p4#15)
3. monitoring (r5p8#56) [r4p6#24]
4. ground water verses surface water (r5p3#22)
5. point of compliance (r6p4#22)
6. Contingency plan,
Catastrophic, goal background (r6p4#26)( r6p4#35) (see unknown #6)(see permitting #5 bonding)(r1p1#5), (r6p7#58) Catastrophic See phil #33) [r4p7#32][r5p1#8] (r5p7#48)



LAW - COURTS

1. township rights verses states rights (r5p8#64) zoning (r6p7#56) (r1p3#18) (r4p5#19)
a. lack of state funds
2. citizens reporting back to the DEQ or mine observation
3. time notices, public hearings
a. public hearings cannot be pre-decided (r6p8#66)
4. extensions (r4p6#29
5. court action (r5p2#14)
6. admitting crimes (r5p3#19) (r1p3#15)(see SE #23)(
7. loopholes in corporate law (r5p4#30) (r6p7#61)(r6p10#81) (r3p6#34)(r4p4#11.4) [r4p7#32]
8. permanent (r6p4#27)
9. loaded gun, duress (fear)[r2p2#9]
10. leases (r4p5#17)



PERMITTING STATUTE

1. turning down a permit page 8 #11 [r6p4#32] (see inconsistency #9)(see baseline #4)( Env. Folly (r5p4#31)(r5p5#38)[r6p4#32] [r3p4#19](r3p6#32)(r4p4#11.5)(r4p5#22)
2. “taking” (r6p4#23)[r6p4#32] (r4p4#16)
3. mineral leases, state of Michigan (r6p9#70) (r5p9#68)
4. “shutdown”, What happens during (r3p7#38)(r4p7#30.1)
5. bonding, security, r4p7#32, eliminating every single risk, Hal says. (r5p3#24) abandoned site (r5p8#63)[r6p1#2][r6p1#5] (r6p9#72)(r6p8#62) (r6p9#69) (r6p9#75) (r1p1#3)(see philosophy #32) (r3p8#45)(r3p7#40)[r4p7#32][r5p1#8]
6. 10,000 tons verses one acre (r5p3#17)
7. traditional mining verses Sulfide (r5p7#53)(r5p8#60)
8. interest of the people [r5p8#54]
9. aquifer not destroying (r5p9#67) r5p1#6)
10. chemicals releasing (r6p4#34)
11. backfilling (r6p5#38)(see Env. letter)
12. (r1p3#16)(
13. leaching violations (r6p3#21



SOCIAL ECOMOMICAL

1. reputation (r5p3#24) (see philosophy #49)
2. deterioration of a community (r2p2#8)
3. conflict with a community, arguing
4. language, words misused [(r4p3#7,9)]
5. public hearing, public meeting purposes (r6p6#54) (r1p2#10)(r1p4#26)(r1p6#31) (r3p1#1)(r3p1#4)(r3p2#10)(r3p4#20)(r4p1#4.1)(r4p5#21)
6. jobs + to a community
7. Tourism wilderness at odds
8. why not: lack of experts
9. UP customs (r1p5#29) (r4p3#9)
10. Public, health, and safety is used in statue (r1p3#13)(r2p4#16) (r4p4#12)
11. Powers letters.
12. Culturally important list (r5p2#13)(r5p2#10) [r5p2#9]
13. private property (r5p4#34) (r5p5#40)
14. sacrifice zones (r5p8#65)
15. ignore it [r6p2#10] (r1p4#25)(r2p2#7) [r3p3#16]
16. the rues [r6p2#11] (see inconsistency #1)
17. (r6p2#14)
18. effected area: (r1p5#29) (see language # 5)
19. measureable (r2p4#18)
20. Benefits and Costs [ r3p3#17](r4p3#10)



BASELINE - FOUNDATION

1. bias or favoritism
2. Lake Superior water Coleman letter on high quality (r6p4#31) (see inconsistence #14) [r5p3#16] r6p8#64
3. facility, Standards set by state for water (r5p3#16) [r6p2#7] (r6p4#29) (see Phil. #28)
4. foundation for accepting or rejecting a permit (r5p5#45) [r6p4#27] (see permitting #1)(r2p1#1)
5. inspections (r5p6#47) (r4p1#2)(r4p5#18)
6. Minimum release (r5p9,10 entire) YD topic, aquifer loophole, defaulting to people


CONSENSUS:

1. Constitution/ Grandholm decisions made by Hal, also r5,p1#3, (see phil #2)(r1p2#6) [r5p2#13](r5p2#14)(r6p11#90) [r5p1#3][r5p1#1](r4p7#30.2)(r3p5#26)(r3p6#36)
2. Transportation route: refer to another statute. How can there be a consensus when we don’t even know the other statute . (R5P3#18) [r5p8#61] (r3p6#29)
3. Move on, Hal says (r5p3#24) (r6p9#74)(r6p10#78) [r6p11#91] (see phil #7)(r2p4#17)(r2p5#21) (r4p2#6.5)
4. knowledge (r5p4#32)
5. adjudicate (r5p5#39)
6. QAQC (r5p5#42
7. quiet me (r5p6#46) (r6p10#80) (r1p3#12)( (r6p1#4) (r6p2#12) (r6p7#59)[r6p9#76][r6p11#91] (r4p2#6)
8. fox [r5p7#50] (see phil #8)
9. Consensus[r5p8#59]
10. unresolved, non negotiable, (r6p8#68) (r6p1#1) 1 to 2 hours discussion of issues (r1p3#17) [r4p3#11.1] (r5p1#1.2)
11. (r6p4#36)(r6p5#39)
12. 10/10 years (r6p7#55) (see Phil #6) [r4p7#34]


inCONSISTENCY

1. site by site, case by case, etc (r5p9#66)[r6p2#11] the rues; (r6p4#30) (r6p10#87) (see SE social economical #16)“Detroit Consumer price index” (r5p2#11) (r3p2#15)(r3p5#25)(r4p5#20.5) (r5p9#68)
2. Why does Hal leave out suggestions (r2p3#11) [r3p2#11]
3. also see philosophy #21 and rules [r4p6#30] ??? think Procedural, enthusiasm
4. Conflicting statutes/laws (r5p1#5)[r5p8#54] (r5p8#55) [r6p5#45] r4p2#4.9)

5. improve on the act (r5p3#21)
6. Champion Mill (r5p3#25)
7. Env. Folly, bench mark: (r5p4#31)
8. Deny permit (r5p5#38) (see permitting statute #1)
9. upfront: (r5p5#43) this might not be an issue ??? except in some areas. [r6p1#2][r6p1#3] (r1p1#2)[r2p3#13]
10. inconsistency (r5p5#44)
11. intent (r5p8#57)[r6p3#17] (r1p3#20)(r5p1#4)
12. reports (r6p6#53)
13. great lakes water (r6p7#57) (see baseline #2)
14. sell water (r6p8#64)


UNKNOWN

1. Property tax: Ind. expressed reactionary or retaliatory expression when taxes were brought up. Like if we pay increased taxes then what about our actual mining rights. I thought, sure you are may be correct Ind. or have a point of debate, but my point is: the frugality or chiseling of money again. Thus being tight. (r4p7#31.5)

2. “is not limited to” (r5p1#7) [r6p6#52] Industry must protect environment
One could give standards but always add: is not limited too. Therefore future law suits could be raised even thought industry did indeed meet “a” qualification. The DEQ wants industry to choose that qualifications verses DEQ to choose said qualifier.
Later: if the qualifier was no good (it polluted) then the DEQ could say: “we did not choose it, you did”. The DEQ wants no blame due to a choice of their own.
Please read between the lines: since the DEQ does not want that responsibility --- how knowledgeable are they? This implies a huge question. It answers one’s question which is: the DEQ is not knowledgeable. [r3p1#6] (see Fitch)(r5p1#7)
2. you write a law but you have not consensus, aren’t legislators elected to write laws, not industry.
3. Industry and DEQ of possible willful changes from that of statute (r5p8#62)
4. “good cause” (r6p3#15) (see phil #39)
5.
6.
7. limiting (r6p10#79)

Notes

1/15/05 Rules #1 (first meeting) page 1 afterthoughts, Summary of this point only. Steve’s issue was, kicking him out yet he was an expert

#1. Expertise: the group wanted experts brought in .. naturally to help .. note the word help, meaning they thought and discussed extensively about this. They know it is an issue, a huge issue. They talked about their own shortcomings. They never have had a sulfide mine before, yet they discussed others mines. After Steve (EPA) gave his opinions and left, they talked about and some wanted him to not come back and help any further. One must ask oneself --- WHY? The ones that did not want him back were most mining and some money interests. The environmental types argued for him coming back. It appeared so obvious to me how the lines or sides were drawn. I finally saw the environmentals express themselves with more debate and feeling.. especially Env. Her face appeared to turn shades of red. Another Env was firing his statement too. Industry gave the strongest expression to not bring him back... a kind of quiet but forceful expression. There was a five minute period of intense discussion. Fitch concluded with saying, he would see what Skip said.

#2. Now: what did Steve say so disruptive. Probably many things but one was specifically expressed. Once a mine site goes bad, it leaks (sulfuric acid) you cannot stop it. Even old mines are leaking today in Virginia. Steve was not given the opportunity to go into details, no-one asked, so far. But he did say: the way to deal with the problem, as best as possible is; UP FRONT FACTORS, he said. He stressed this point. He said it several times. Not twice but 3 or 4 times. He is a quiet soft spoken type, but he raised his voice for this point.

#3 In this line of thought: he went onto liability and said: the feds would have to pay the costs for huge leaks .. this is why he is here speaking .... NOW (he raised his voice and expression again) . It is understood to him that his assistance will help created laws that are up front in order that major problems do not happen. Cause the Feds are the ones who have had to pay in the end.

#4 Since Steve said; Mines leak which was negative to the DEQ and mining interest --- I think this is why they did not want him back but the answer these groups gave as valid was: Steve does not understand our own state process and therefore has to be brought up to speed, and he, besides goes off the topic sometimes .... A ? Env, complained of how she personally had to bring him up to speed (so to speak) Fitch said this about 3 times; as if saying such was the only issue. Yet, why was it given so much time and intensity form the mining interest and others. The debate was probably for 15 to 30 minutes about weather to bring him back. Look at the time they waste with this.

#5. The frightenly expressive thing Steve said was “once a mine start to leak, you cannot stop it” Steve is a lead man out of Washing DC with the EPA. He has a reputation of being extremely knowledgeable in his field. 50 to 100 lawsuits he has been connected with. Think of the above --- you’re having meeting to write law for guidance for the DEQ, for a whole dangerous industry evolving; yet they (DEQ) considers shutting off Page 2

#6. this fantastic source of knowledge. I shake my head in dis belief. One of their answers also was: the EPA is out-dated and we are a unique entity with knowledge of our own. Yet, none of these arguments made sense to me --- except the DEQ is financially benefiting from mining. By the way, Hal Fitch directly did express this benefit early during the same meetings. From notes page 1 1/13/05 Stay within the intent of the Act Bill 6243 Rules: 1. time line: importance of it. 2. Concern of size of group, limited in numbers a. views and suggestions b. has done good work they brag, no it has not I say to myself (naturally). Does it include the lost real estate values lost, public input, etc.

#7 Expertise issue. 3 types of groups.... weather adding new groups to the committee. Mining companies have their own motives. The Governor and legislators have spoken so the group is, as it is

#8. “public interest”, yet not to add members because of time limitations. Lake township has the largest sales increase in years in Memonomy county, was a response to me.

#9. Still with groups, I thought why not come to Marquette where extensive comments; a compromise is that all meeting be held in Mqt. because you are not permitting all groups to have input. I spoke with Env privately; he glared in response, NO. I will not drive that far. I will quit. He was all but vicious in his response.

#10. Skip said; there is plenty of opportunity for the public to have input. The man from lake township is wrong about loss of value; he said: values are the same or greater. Areas of study are 1. permit application 2. mining reclamation 1 3. EIA, Hydro-something 2 4. financial contingencies 3 5 monitoring and reporting

#11. Problem of lack of input verses Industry (Ind) to be involved page 3 in all groups, then others to be too. They talk of trust but I think, look at Ind. A terrible conflict of, if one group person is at one meeting above then how can they be at each meeting when happening at the same time

#12. Joe likes to dictate his wishes I cannot here all the input, even of the members

Afternoon: #13 Hal Fitch personally said to me social reasons or things are not appropriate here and were intentionally decided to not be dealt with. Hal does not know what to say to me.

EPA
Not 100% of phomonon, not safe #14. This man is bad for information in a way, but presented great. Terrible information at first; if the public knew what he is saying, no-one would purchase anywhere nearby. He was very concerned about TIME.

#14. Standards were written 20 years ago. (Steve is concerned about time, while Hal is concerned too but from a different standpoint... Steve says to bring things up to speed, but Hal says/implies we don’t need someone else telling us how to do our job., etc)

#15. You have to meet standards but what if they are already started.... Ind has test drills.

#16. The Students asked, if you know there is going to be a problem, then why give a permit anyway.

#17 How reliable are models, Models change,. Steve says: there is no solution, when you open up the ground-you find something new. Late afternoon 1/13/05 next meetings are: Feb. 3,4, Feb. 23/24 , March 17/18, April 7/8

#18. I talked privately with Steve about Nuisance Law, he said this is where you can stop the mining. (I need to study this, cause I barely understood him) It is hard to prove this, he said.

#19. Who benefits; the DEQ and the mining company; Skip says.

#20. Notification of intent to mine. Most thought this was good, yet it was debated back and forth.

#21. “2 parties with vested interest these words were specifically used by the DEQ

no existing models are known for wet areas. Page 4

#22. Public input: Env stresses the importance because the companies may want to know the likeliness of their success ... the issue of rushing the permit. They concluded notice to the public, but NO public input would be allowed at that time.

#22.5 Next I went to subgroup #3 Evening: a minor said to the township you won't make money implying profits to the township on taxation (he was jiving him). Tribal ownership has been expressed several times in reference to separate control, supporting Sovereign ownership

#23 One man suggested : a change of location of mine shaft needed reasons WHY. Such changes should occur but Joe did not know the answer to an extent, reflective of the lack of DEQ knowledge to that extent, here. (still, the point is : they do not know some things)

#24. They say; health and welfare are local issues

1/14/05
#26. The Indians brought up again, the over-all period of time is lacking; because originally enough time was not allowed for public input because the fox was in the hen house... they restricted public input. But here the Indians person is here asking again. Hal repeats himself saying; he thought they were fine, but I remember their was dispute about the lack of time. Time notice issues He is asking for as much time as possible that the DEQ can give. (the Indian attorney was polite and quiet, a young person from Detroit. Their excuse was; the law is now set. This was because of Ind) Hal says, Balance of time (with the mining interest) He wants to leave it alone.

Again, When time was discussed, Ind was pressing for their time and they WON. This occurred at Marquette when the law was written.

Pre-Scoping; directs the DEQ to put applications on some sort of web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin has 1 to 3 years to respond which we have only 180 days, one man says. The EPA man said, they expect more time too, but this group po-po his comments.

#27. This time issue is fascinating: I wonder how such a issue could be played through the courts. There was the lack of time throughout this total effort. Then there is the literature of how Ind pushes matters. Then there is the pushing of the public to give input page 5 Then a law is written, 3 minutes for input. Then the rules people cannot give time, yet they are told of Minn and Wis give 1 to 3 years. #28 Then the EPA Tells the group he/we don’t want the liability because of; we are the final ruling or have to pay for the issue, (so take your time) #29. Effected area indirect impacts (effects)= EPA; this man brought out a major issue. This topic was poorly received. The bill was written for direct impacts as they say. Social Economic impacts: this act does not cover this, Hal Fitch says. Skip, says, the intent is that the DEQ will consider the total area. (Effected area= It is understood by all parties that the DEQ shall consider the effects of Sulfide mining on the total Social Economic area around a proposed mine site. These effects could range anywhere from 1/2mile to 100 miles and even further. It is more likely to occur around 10 to 20 miles. An example being the affects on Tourism in the Entire Upper Peninsula. Further what are the effects on quality of life issues in communities. This paragraph is written by me and I plan to improve it and finally submit it to the rules group)

After debate about effected area, HaL FITCH SAYS, YA I GUESS A NEIGHBOR COULD BE EFFECTED BY THIS, HE PAUSES AND NODES HIS HEAD --- MAYBE WE SHOULD BURM UP A HILL TO BLOCK Its VIEW(he thinks he should give a little and understands a point); (he tilts his hands and talks about a persons house viewing the mine site and concludes the burming up of earth would work to block the view. Then he thought, I wonder where their house is located on their property. Maybe they have a forty and are built in the center or far side, implying no burming would be necessary cause they cannot see the mine site anyway.. He and others go on to talk about this hypothetical neighbor and burming up the bank. To me this is an ungodly example of how obtuse Hal is about UP custom and life styles. I don’t know weather they don’t want to see, or are just unaware... and consequently NOT experts. Although Joe lives in Gwinn, and I wonder why he does not say anything.) ( if you understand what I mean by UP custom and lifestyles: there are no or very few fences, roads go everywhere, neighbors help one another even at distances of a few miles away, etc.) He does not see the recreational use of land.

The Indian during a break said: He keeps writing to Hal, but they do not respond AFTERNOON 1/14/05

Effected area continues I brought us Conservation Easements and the Nature Conservancy. Env said he would talk with the conservancy and report back later.. Another example of lack of experts.

#30. Env brought up Eco Systems/Habitat. I told them about the Mulligan and when about 10 years ago White Water Associates from Amasa, one of the strongest professional water groups here in the UP, was hired by Longyear and Mead and they #31. fought in court against Michigamee Highlands but settled with a restrictive protective operational cutting plan on the Mulligan. Even Env said, Why didn’t Doug Cornett (Michigamee Highlands) say something about this. I said, I am telling you now, and this is an example of lack of public input of which you desperately need. This eco system is one of the last stands of virgin timber in the UP.. which is now protected. Actually I personally set it up. Part of it anyway.

#32. The EPA Steve was great in the end. Ind does not want the EPA to come , the State questions his presence. It is terrible, that some people don’t want Steve while he is so valuable. They want to control knowledge. The EPA has no economic interest while 75% - 90% of the people in this room have interest. Yesterday, the group wanted perspective but today they want to control his input, Env said.

#33. Skip, used the phrase, cultural things at the site. (look at the word cultural. Have state officials dummied down our language so much that they don’t even look at the words they use themselves. Cultural reflects and means a total collection of everything around a given peoples. This is the same as UP way of life and customs)

#2work group 2-3-05 (second meeting) page 1 The EPA (Steve) is back. Hal said, they invited him back for the entire process. Nothing more was said. Interesting.

#1. Steve spoke saying BASELINE: of water, air, including human resources. Why wasn’t air added he asked.

#2. He gave a summary of the entire process and said it was simple to him. 1. Conceptual 2. Models 3 baselines 4 etc.

He said, the baseline must be done first.

He talked about range of voluntary, I cannot remember what this was about.

Steve sat down

Next: Changes in mining permit verses leaving it along Triggering was talked about. (of time lines, the 180 days,) Budget (DEQ) for checking out companies Where does the money come from. Hal says the legislators

Financial assurances: it is limited to specific persons, not as a group

In group 1 with Hal Fitch AM on Thursday

#3. How do you word voluntary items, (ah I see). Notice of intent is an issue (a voluntary Item), a time issue (again). This notice does not have to be done. Env expressed this well about a guidance. A clear distinction between voluntary and mandatory, again this would help with the time line.

Ind personally expressed to me: Trust, doing extra is imperative while failures come down to lack of trust.



THE Footprint

Nordin (Mark) lawsuit in Menominee County, severing mineral rights. They expire after 40 years, and now is updated to 20 years. After 40 years the rights become no-ones if

they were not reclaimed within the 40 years. If one day after they are page 2 lost, in limbo. We talked about this privately, naturally.

PM Thursday #4. Hal wants to rush along again, he says.

#5. Indian expressed so politely and quietly how; things were eliminated from the law, but all to be put into rules, then they want to be put into guidance. (This was the theme this entire session, it seemed; which is really covering up for time line errors.).

Cultural; anthropology, definition to Hal (where is my anthropology book)

Items that benefit a community or undermine a community are social economical. Compared with historical conditions that have not dealt with social economical



Evening 2/3/05 Written Before Bed

There was an intensive debate after the meeting, before we left, between Inv, my neighbor and myself about the word cultural #6. Neighbor and I talked even later about how it may have been a mistake to bring out the word cultural meaning maybe they would have left it in, which would have been to our advantage. Yet, he and I were trying to help and be clear, yet we lost ... because Steve EPA said: he thought it should not be used because of the highly increased probability of lawsuits by the Indians (out west) due to the ambiguity (etc) of the word cultural. (this should be transcended, period. This reflects how the will of the people is absent, and it is such a battle to bring it forth. How hypocritical to be talking before public officials that are so obtuse) #7. It brings into play the principles of social economical factors, which are to remain not a part of this law...... supposively. Env stresses this too. #8. The three of us, then Env joined in, expressed how... township expenses will rocket yet they won’t receive the funds. Env said: this is an environmental law, not a social law (something like that) but he does not promise a solution. He finally hypnotized that: if historically something could be shown then maybe he would change his mind, which I found hopeful. He is so curiously adamant at times. #9. Neighbor kept debating how the Indians want their cultural principles. He fortunately kept badgering against Env. Env said, he did not want to jeopardize the existing law. Neighbor kept saying NO, it is in the scope of the DEQ to look at these factors. (I wonder: does the DEQ not want to look at these factors cause then the onus is on the DEQ, otherwise they could sit back and pretend it does not exist. If the DEQ comes out and acknowledges it does exist then they have to talk about it which makes things more complex, and they have to make a proposal as to how to deal with this, and such would be hell to them) Especially since earlier Indian expressed how the law writing process pushed important concepts into the rules process and now they want to push them out of the rules

process and into guidelines: there was debate between guidance and guideline. Page 3 #10. Guideline is a somewhat legal process with some public input while guidance is in-house or set up by the DEQ itself). He did not like this at all and you could see he felt such was very unjust. #11. Hal Fitch nearly immediately responded and ended up saying several times we will have to work this out and put it in the rules (the next day he pulls things back out). I spoke about the value of putting items in writing cause what happens 10 plus years down the line when originally we were trusting Hal, and then, here he has retired. It becomes clear that things must go in the rules. #12. This topic proceeded cultural, and therefore cultural had to be pursued.

I also thought to myself; if we loose the word cultural then recognize how the environmental groups are giving, plus conceding to Steve EPA ... therefore why cannot the DEQ also give in to Steve in other concepts like up front matters or whatever ... that is listening to Steve more uniformly, equally, fairly.. #13. Another important point of the 4 of us discussed was the increased cost to the township ó yet Env expressed how all projects cost more for townships. I said, no they don’t We talked about schools, roads. Later I talked with Government about this; he is hard to understand but I think he said: I got to get the most out of Ind.

Trust is the theme of this session Ind talked about the word trust and that such had to be forthcoming in order to enter a new era of mining where pollution was the issue and not saying , no to the mining interest. He’s a very religious man and talked about the power of trust with me, privately. He speaks his words slow with thought and concern, and I respect him for such. He says: if there cannot be trust, then nothing can happen. This was echoed by the Lansing Legislature. #14. Ind pointed out: if Ind gives extra, such is power and good, if they do the minimum then such is weak and deceptive. Notice of intent to mine was the issue we talked about. That the mining company would do such because it created trust with the community. Ind quietly spoke to me of this pointing out Ind’s ways. Saying, see. I finally explained to him how Ind had lied to the Big Bay People, by saying if you did not want a mine we would not mine. Someone expressed how Ind was having a citizens input meeting which illustrated the mining companies extra effort but several environmental persons countered immediately : how it was a public display only. Ind shrugged his shoulders, and said nothing. This environmental expression from others was very strong and I don’t know how Ind could have responded anyway. There is no response anyway cause Ind is wrong, it is a sham. Such created distrust and Ind is wrong. But he is right if such actions are pure and honest. Trust and truth is power. Ind did not respond to me.... yet anyway. I will quietly discuss it forthright with him.

2/4/05 page 4

#15. NURIPA anti degration, I have to figure this out

#16. Steve says, explain or state that data should be collected for Public health, safety, or welfare. This is the coin phrase used in law. It is used 8 times in the House Bill 6243. This means the social economical effects are indeed to be considered. This means: Steve says, again, data is to be collected on the effected area I say, tourism, at large is the effected area.

Mitigation???

#17. Ind expressed time factors again. He’s like clockwork.

Allows the State to make a decision based upon acceptance or rejection but supported by recorded details in the rules: which unfortunately is not happening because of lack of time but Ind says it may or many not be true and raised his eyebrow at me wanting more debate.

#18. Baseline of social economical; make it measurable.

#19. Storm water permit: What is the regulation: Due to the sand characteristic of the Yellow Dog Plaines. Storm water would have chemical waste.

#20. Stream flow model for 1 year, was debated heavily or extensively, cause Hal is leaning towards 1 year or minimum evaluation verses further study. Neighbor debated this over and over. Neighbor finally said, Hal, how can you be concerned for the public good where you are supposed to represent the public environmental quality, and yet you will not protect these water. This does not make sense. He would look at Hal politely and Hal look politely back. It was amazing to watch Hal hold his ground, yet be attacked by neighbor. Hal did not even wiggle in his chair. He sat there, red faced as normal, explaining how one years is enough, they can extrapolate the other years and if an error they can adjust as it would be inconsequential ............ yet he listened to neighbor politely point out the value of greater time. Even I pointed out, lake-effect and elevation are huge unique factors here. Still Hal held his ground. Even, time was attempted to be brought back into play, but Hal rejected all factors. When I think of this, I am stunned. I will just continue to watch. I cannot see ....... yet. I find this perplexing. I did not see body language, nothing. Just Hal standing on top of his own mountain. Yet, neighbor is correct. Hal’s answer is not logical. Could it be, Hal has been worked over by Ind? It is like he has thought it out and clearly knows his answer..... yet this is not what these meeting are about. I don’t think Ind said anything. He did not need too.

Page 5 #21. Env said: lets make sure we respond to items not too often or limit peoples speaking.

Page 1 2/26/05 Rules 3

Notes large print tends to be directly from my notes, small print is interpretation Summary from St Ignace meeting on Thursday and Friday.

There are 3 steps for this total process. 1. Existing law written 2. Rules a. Working through the process and 3 sessions are left b. Public hearings afterwards about the rules 3. Permit filing public hearings

The few times I spoke was OK, but overall I was disappointed with myself. Therefore I think I need to better educate myself in order to communicate more effective. I need to support others like Envand Env at the appropriate times. I need to lead appropriately too. I feel I am ineffective, yet I am right at the edge where I could be effective. I feel there are others like me or similar to me.

Skip is not in favor of time lines changes and wanted less public input. #1. What is good for one is good for all. DEQ is arguing about no public notice, again #2. May/may: Env debated and said, he thought we had an agreement last time but Hal now changes his mine due to Skip. #3. Proprietary information: don’t want information known to the public because of mining confidential verses may/may. This discourages open dialogue. #4. You canceled public notice where notice is the issue again. #5. Practical perspective is trust and honest presentation. #6. More generic language is more acceptable Hal says. (Yet at other times it is not, whatever suits him and his mind set) #7. Ind does not like notice. Notice of simple use. I cannot remember Flagging notice of issues. Ind again suggests moving from rules to guidance, which is pushing things further into burocacy. #8. Again, Ind comments could be restricting or hushing public input. Another repeat of Ind on rushing.

Page 2 Reasonable expectation. #9. Not opposed to being open with what we this is reasonable expectation. Hal did not put in this issue from last meeting so now he has to put it in. Again the may/may issue. #10. It is trying to get the DEQ to recognize giving more time. Time issues again, over and over. The may/may thing is really a negotiated issue reaching all the way back to the law, when it was written, rush through.

#11. It appears the discussion continues to be an effort to get Hal to insert phrases into the law. Hal makes changes but does not show them on later drafts.

#12. Hal and Ind agrees, if an issue is not clear (many are) then we can precede forward with contingency clauses. “Contingent with what is in the Statues-Ind states this” This is accepted by Hal, but when it comes times for such environmental issues which are favorable, Hal is difficult to persuade to accept similar issues.

Mining Activities, Standards, NREPA. Feasible and Prudent #13. Standards may be feasible and prudent. All techniques are to be feasible and prudent, with a brief WHY of what you did. Hal seemed to dwell of this for a while.

Sometimes these people are excellent and come to agreements superbly and I am proud of them. I expect much more of them thought.

#14 Again, public input comments, Env is excellent on what is occurring while most of the others are nearly sleeping, but watching with little comment, or analysis. There could be much more analysis if we knew what we were talking about.

Read NREPA Afternoon Thursday #15. It still appears persons are commenting about their own areas verses what may happen later for the people of the entire Western UP. Page 3 #16. Page 4, part V: Env and I suggested the Mulligan and Virgin timber: Env changed the wording to Part V; then the next meeting it was finally eliminated; therefore Env and my suggestion was eliminated.

Env has probably been through this process, but others (public) have NOT.

#17. Social economical: “out of the preview of the DEQ” Ind says this. Hal does not want to answer again this question. They continue to talk about public and the environment, but not cost to the communities. They talk about costs and benefits and Linda agrees. But Env says, if benefits are presented by industry then why not talk about costs of the communities, or that “costs are to be discussed”. Industry looks stoned faced. You can see them thinking. Env talks about being fair. If one is presented then the counter should be presented Env presents. (this is the first time I have thought of this, this way. It is a good point and quite logical. You can see industry seeming to squirm. Cause it is an excellent point. There is no question Env is good. You have 100s of jobs created by industry, why not talk about jobs that are lost. This topic went back and forth for maybe 15 plus minutes. But industry had no response cause there is none.) (Env say: if you take out discussion of jobs, then you cannot talk about costs to a community,,, but, if you sell your mine to a community, they you have to totally present all the consequences. Hal, sits there and nods, yes. This makes sense.) Hal, speaks of “feasible and prudent alternatives: if you discuss the benefits-why not discuss the costs”. Someone asks, (maybe Hal) “What will the DEQ do with the information” Someone answers, make some kind of decision. I did not here the answer well. But it was about the authority of the law and DEQ. “It is not required to express the benefits, therefore not the costs.” The conclusion was, no it is not required. Env repeats, then no benefits. Ind (industry) is looking cross-eyed. (I do not understand my notes here “possible flow in permit” I think it was my current thinking while there that permits are a sequence of statement and words with benefits to a community, but absent costs) “These people see a problem” the industry (in my notes). I wonder that a light went on in industries head. Industry wants and intends to present no costs to a community. “The DEQ is not authorized; Hal says. Social economics are well outside” the debate continues.

#18. “The DEQ does not have the expertise”. Here they page 4 were referring to social economic things as being unknown to them or too difficult to evaluate. I also suspect I am referring to that the DEQ just does not see. Hypothetical wording is presented as such (which was amazing to come to even this point) “To the extent the EIA (environmental impact assessment) addresses the social economic benefits it shall also address the social economic costs.” (close to this)

“All the people now moved together. From two groups Hal wants less detail, but what about large weather events. Feasible and prudent he says. Hal added Rule 102 of part 632 rules Hal will take it out” again (back and forth we go)

#19. “Cancellation of permit, Env suggested, but they don’t want to put it in writing under page 6, line 27, item 4; Not following Env suggestion; also Hammtramick issue of drugs use in Detroit where a company continues to harm but the DEQ does not cancel the permit. Env was trying to insert clarification for the benefit of all, the state included. Hal rejects Env’s suggestion. Env says, you can pay me now or later….(I and a few others snicker)….. Referring to you legally need a cancellation statement. I understand this from real estate law, but Hal ignores the comment. Industry sits there quiet, mostly. This illustrates the closed mindedness by Hal which is unintended; because this is not Hal’s field of expertise. And the controlled nature of industry of volunteering very little. Env made many separate and different suggestion throughout these two days. Anywhere from 10 to 20, being important legal advice. But Hal rejected most, and industry remains quiet. I personally talked with Env later about my satisfaction with many of his comments, asking him why has he not commented earlier. He said it took him till this third session to get the depth of all the issues. I shake my head in dis-belief. Ind express opposition because of consistency within the law and Rules.(I don’t begin to understand all this)”

#20. Steve EPA talked of “5 months that it takes to write a Permit”, implying it will take the state this much time to respond.

#21. Hal speaks “of tuning things up”. He will do such whenever he wants to. This refers to the control Hal has.

#22. “Env says, all permit must recognize all other permits” This brought up a long and difficult conversation.

Page 5 #23. “Time factors: if they cannot follow a sequence of issuing permits then they could issue a permit with a “condition” this is another example of RUSH”. I talked about this earlier, and things are re-hashed consistently for many reasons. Now, here’s the point of lack of fair playing field; the DEQ will give or talk about such a condition for industry, but won’t and is reluctant to give such leniency for the environmental group. It’s like trying to pull teeth out of them.

#24. “Effected area again: What are they verses the state thinks something verses Company. This could block a permit if there is a conflict between the two. Steve EPA says this is imperative. Back 40 lands clearly spelled out the potential conflict. Hal admits: what is the evidence. Little do they know. This sure looks like Steve will block a permit if the effected area is not proper.”

#25. Rules should say this: unique for each site is the effected area. Friday Morning #26. We environmentalist lost on 1. Township authority 2. Time lines, public notice 3. ISO, monitoring 4. Water What is part 201? It permits

#27. A water study shall be performed by x company for a period of between 1 and 10 years. Said time period shall be based upon the specific and individualistic characteristics of the mining site, and the total effected area, and the social economical effects. Said Water study also shall not commence until open public input has been thoroughly received and responded too. The mining permit shall be (permanently) rejected and terminated if such type of public input has not been obtained. Any Governmental authority or entity (courts, DEQ, legislators, Governor) shall not unequivocal consider previous expenditures (monies, labor, whatever) spent on a mining proposal as and incentive for the issuing of a permit.

#28. NIMBY This concept is the focusing issue or possible #1 defense as presented by Hal Fitch at the whirlpool was my thought before

bed. I told him he was closed minded, and then shock his page 6 hand. He said, he was worried about me at first, but he now sees I’m OK.

#29. “Contaminant transport in trucking” was discussed privately by Vince

#30. “Any procedure needs quality assurance.” “Performance Standards= minimum data requirements” DEQ lingo.

AM Meeting with Hal; 632 statute

#31. Transfer of ownership: is it significant. I first thought, why this? It is a waste of time, but we ended up spending much time here. “Someone wanted public hearing. Public hearing give knowledge to the DEQ”: I said this our loud. The DEQ rejected this, yet the topic continued. There was much debate which evolved into “The public will have to live with whoever is issued a permit”. “Legally bound not to issue a permit EPA Steve says.” This is an amazing statement. A person with massive violation would still have to be issued a permit. #32. “There is NO bases for rejecting a permit on a State level, a State Employee says.” “Much discussion was on transfer of ownership which leads too I forgot” #33. ISO certified. Hal wants to cancel ISO. Hal will talk with Skip Pross on this. #34. “Mining of ores and it’s transfer” the sale of ores on site and how this occurs was presented by industry.

#35. “Strict and severed liability, Steve EPA” Steve asked if people understood this, but I think not. Cause two question later someone asked a question about it. Steve knowledge wise is above the clouds. This was in connection with transfer of ownership…. That one could or could not ride themselves of liability. It was not even touch on. Steve’s advice gone down the drain.

#36. Law 63203, page 3: Hal asserts his authority here for what he wants but he does not when he thinks otherwise: Why does he choose so !!! strong. “Sec.63203(1) The department shall administer and enforce this part in order to regulate nonferrous metallic mineral mining. In addition to other powers granted to it, the department may promulgate rules it considers necessary to carry out its duties under this part, including standards for construction, operation, closure, postclosure monitoring, reclamation, and remediation of a nonferrous metallic mineral mine. However, the department shall not promulgate any additional rules under this part after December 31, 2005”

#37. Page 10 of 632 (yellow highlight) was page 7 a struggle but after good and intensive communication a decent decision was made. There were conflicts between Shall and May. Hal finally wrote down a change which was very good. Lets see if he shows this in the new data. These comments are recorded by myself here to illustrate Hal does do a very good job at times as I recognize this. In overview or totality though my comment here illustrates that the job is so difficult and important it just and explicitly cannot be handled by one mind or agency (as I see it now). The total overview is just too important and therefore needs a much wiser man or a group of talented individuals watching all this happen. It needs more talented environmental people too. I would suspect, the industry group is lacking also. I continually have these observational thought watching this rules progress. Although if you were to put more people in the room I question whether you would accomplish a good product. I am presently thinking the entire matter needs to be redone from a different standpoint or perspective. I will know more in the end as I am watching carefully.

#38. Covering piles if reclamation or temporary piles Temporary closure.

Financial assurances AFTERNOON E39. Steve EPA says: inflation rates of return is the issue: what happens 15 years later. Review of bonds (consistent and routinely) What is part 201 … permits Commitment for a permit of financial assurance was discussed. Why get insurance when you don’t have a permit, yet. Ind seriously asked this question. He has a subtle difference in his behavior; comparing his posturing verses honesty.

#40. “Further liability: total release which was not the intent al all.” This was with surety I think

Afternoon, continued on financial assurance #41. If the law and rules talk about the reputation (track record) then why not social economic.

#42. Repeated thoughts: Sometimes I cannot help but think the environmental people are very inadequate or not knowledgeable experts to be a good law and rules in total.

#43. Here’s an example of matching the statutes (Ind) with the rules. Ind wants something changed from rules, so Hal changes and quotes the statues directly with the rules; whereas Hal had had something different but unsatisfactory to Ind. Env are looking at these rules as worse then the statute, yet Hal is so unreasonable to work with, unlike that for Ind… This is the unfair playing field.

#44. Hal wants to have the authority to approve the permit if all page 8 conditions are met as stated. Hal does not want to be hung out to dry.

#45. How does the DEQ recover the cost to go after the industry; Env asks. No answer was there, except it comes out of oversight or you cannot get it except court action.

Discussing the bank to have its place of business or doing business in Michigan verses in Gwam in the S Pacific. Making a surety not so strict that the DEQ cannot get a company to actually obtain said surety or insurance.. (11/24/05: What if you had a truck 15 years old but no miles on it. The insurance co. will insure the year but not the low mileage. I tried this myself. This points to the same situation as our un-insurable… therefore they have to be evaluated differently, maybe no permit. Some sites can have a high percentage danger while other sites are less risky, insurance would reflect this.)

A surety is released once the DEQ says so; but them 10 years later it leaks and your insurance money is gone. You only can go after the original company but not anything else. Surety: they issue this based upon getting insurance and that they (industry) want to get insurance and that they have the reputation or keep their reputation. One cannot make it impossible for the industry to get this surety. WHY? Env says it is a “taking” I say, protection of the environment

So the State takes the surety Bond or released it. How does it use the bond, to pay social programs in Lower Michigan. The communities are left with the environmental nightmare.



Rules #4 Notes page 1

3/17/05 (large print is actual notes, small print is interpretation. All Cap ISSUE does not mean there are not issues elsewhere. It is just where my mind temporarily focused. My instinct is to just write down issues. These are my notes, poor grammar and all. These is intended to record ideas for myself and for those who read this please recognize the above, and that this information is my personal opinions and observations and actual statement made there at St Ignace. I have not had the time to listen to my tape recorder to add thoughts and comments from it. Jean, my wife could edit this, but I am afraid to ask her, it would take too long and is too difficult, so good luck to you readers.)

#1. DEQ would rather be sued by industry then public Office of regulatory form and another will approve the rules Left out language, Hal admits this Hal wants a trust level, he sincerely does but his mind set (see earlier notes) restricts him Language left out- extensive talk-liners topic

Rule 102 = DEQ is unsure. Not generic but use specific ????

103 = (e) Flag this. Beneficiation (flag this mean: talk next meeting in detail) effected area = what is it. #2. Environmental baseline Modeling relies on yearly testing

#3. Definitions = person is defined in act 449 Discussion of what terms really mean All morning this topic occurred.

Afternoon Page 7 scooping = nothing till permit arrives #4. Pre permit discussions

Notice of intent

ISSUE: Hal says: other permits (notice of intent) don’t have 3 public meeting like we have only 2 in our (implying) 2 meeting are enough. This topic reflects again of lack of time to study matters Address it in guidance was brought up.

Env asked me to not tape this.- I find this terrible = he wants private conversations between his neighbors and wants them not taped. I am shocked but snap back at him.. I lean sideways back towards him I say go ahead make a scene because I am not budging (something like that). The tape recorder is off anyway. I am instantly mad. Actually I had already shut it of, cause Ind asked me and spoke of client confidentiality. I was so surprise but polite… yet very upset in my self. I was thinking and trying to listen to the group on other matters and pondering and pondering and stewing. But I could not believe what is happening to me. I was thinking after Ind had asked me and I politely responded: here I have sat through 10 days of these people/meetings and I need a tape to study things later and I page 2 specifically asked Hal if I could tape it. He said it was fine. Plus the DEQ was taping it. Yet, both of these individually got up, walked around Ind, and whispered in my ears to have me shut of the tape. Actually, Ind (part) and I had earlier solved the issue before either of these persons approached me. That cheep tape recorder could not pick up their whisperings anyway. The Lake township guys on the other side of me, couldn’t believe what they were seeing. They said to me, “tell em to go talk somewhere else.” Env said it twice to me later. I wonder that this is a matter of intimidation. This is why I was so mad…. And responded so aggressively back to Env. Although this may be much more complex then I think, even as I think of this as I write this down. It could be that I deserve what I sow. I have occasionally tried to be humorously direct with the known Mining people trying to create a more relaxed atmosphere. Maybe they don’t know how to take someone so direct as I can sometimes be. But I don’t think this is it. It may be just a matter of client confidentially as they say. But why don’t they just go off to the side and talk. Why, when Ind and I had resolved it , they have to still insult me. Something is wrong here, something is deeper. During the break, Env talked with Hal and determined that I had that right. Hal stuck up for me, but I did not push the issue. I offer to move in order to not be more confrontational. I could not find a seat though, till at last. See the political seating in that place is something. Further: I asked Ind if he minded if I taped things. He laughed and said, go ahead, “I couldn’t stand to listen to these meeting again” better for you if you can. We laughed. Actually we were kinda getting acquainted with one another. I decided to stop talking with him, cause I felt I was telling him too much. I politely explained this, and he said he understood. I wonder: did we feel like two little boys that wanted to play, but our parents told us to be quiet and sit still in fear. I ended up moving and sitting next to Steve Hoffman, EPA. Maybe spirit did the right thing with me.

#4.9. Standards for decisions are NEPA

#5. Jean’s comments on permits being issued and review, was discussed. How can the public evaluate something if all the permits are not present. Or that the public does not have a fair chance to responds. (Jean is my wife)

#6. We (Env, Env, and myself) were told by Joe Maki that we had to not sit at the main table, because we were not stakeholder (I guess). Env took an empty seat as soon as Joe turned his back and when one looked empty. She’s pretty good at fighting for stuff.

#6.5. The group want to restrict discussion again.

#7. Ind (= Ind) debates the law again, against human use.

#7.1. EIA is an informal document not a regulatory document.

Asking for human effects of the mine. Again.

#7.3 Env says to define “land use” This was an excellent statement but was ignored by all..

ISSUE; Prussi did not read the law before signing it; maybe he read it real fast.

#7.9. ISSUE: Env suggested where the law implies social economic page 3 items and Ind was quietly smug, implying that social economic ideas were actually in the statute. For an intense period he had been arguing that they were not in the statute.

#8. ISSUES: Wells, their definitions and customs of the UP. Camp well, springs are quite varied and dispersed and …. This reflects how the DEQ and industry are unaware of unique UP customs. Thus laws being made by obtuse people, downstate people. If a good elaborate discussion #9. was had here, open and friendly, even intense and vigorous, chatter like, with plenty of time…. Then even “other” overlooked matters may be seen or discovered. But the conditions for this are not there. There are really at least two issues here. Wells, and communication. But what about “custom”, which I think is “law of situs”. What about “other”.

#10. Page 12 line 28,29 Not the bases for weather issuing a permit, Ind says. The legislators did not intent that communities gain or loose value. The DEQ cannot judge on Social Economical status.

Evening = nothing, Env lost his keys, bed early, played in the wirlpool

#11. Night = why present ideas to industry when you’ve written such a bad law. You don’t contribute, but you block and have prevented social economical factor from entering the total equation/product/process. Ask Env and Env if we should agree to the above. I have even figured out a safer mining proposal. If I have figured this out, why after 60% through this process while you are 100% involve, why is this the case. Answer is the games played by industry.

3/18/05

We discussed that most of today is to generalize, except to focus on named issues. We did discuss all of those named issues in fairly good detail form existing perspectives which are sometimes somewhat fun and productive arguments. Sometimes there perspective are indeed correct. (the process is so important its perspective should be correct and varied all the time. I wonder how they get used to each other, therefore when differences arise conflicts surface. If you don’t fit in you cannot talk) These can be discussed again. Give written comments on details, use strict and bold. Use draft #4, one week you have.

Four types of leaching. 1. hep = outside, uncovered 2. vat = covered outside 3. dump = solution are different, outside. What is beneficiation = crushing, smashing the ore to dust or something #11. 1 To protect = standards 632; to protect this and that verses contaminates Much talk occurred being interesting. Hal did great, spurring and encouraging debate… some. But Env started it all. Env was trying to get to the foundation or core of leaching. Once they got there, which appeared they did, they couldn’t advance. In their thoughts that is. I think Env. began to harp on it. Ind shakes his head…. Others seem to grit their teeth or raise their jaw. Conversely, Env is so talented and a voice so scolding, Env got no-where and conservation got nowhere. So poor Hal, is waiting for input. It was nice to see Env did not back down. She indeed has her strengths. I finally saw where the guy from Houghton mining professor is clearly pro mining. But I don’t see where he is safe. Not yet anyway. I wonder that it would take two full days for me to straighten these people out, if I could at all. Maybe even a week. I am seeing more and more the results of rushing and internal anger of individuals. What kind of excuse is this for a law. This is awful, but if it was just the DEQ, it would be far below page 4 awful. Any way you look at it, I shake my head in disbelief. Even the two new people don’t see what I am saying…. I think. They were industry persons.

#11.2. Oversight of liners a shallow topic, yet so important, there could be much more creatitivity here. Redundancy (repeating) of protective devices; Ind says. It is interesting how Ind uses this word yet I don’t see it’s true meaning being applied. It’s like the word is used for show. I like the word, but I don’t see it truly being applied, yet that is.

#11.3. Hep leaching should be based on the merits; Ind says. But why doesn’t Ind suggest them Performance/design I need thinking on this, I barely understand this. My gut feeling tells me this is important.

#11.4 Effects on small business of the APA, use performance verses design. How Ind is small business—DEQ has to look at it this way, some of us shake our heads.

#11.5. ISSUE: Cyanide/ risks are great and complex; EPA says. Certain mines were shut down here in the UP. White Pine, ETC.. It’s permit change did not pass in some way. The water (DEQ) lady explained this, was it implying the DEQ will turn down permit on what conditions, BUT again this topic was not focused on. It should have been. But why????

#12. ISSUE; Rule package must tie back to Public health and safety etc, Hal says. I cannot help but wonder, he says the words but does not understand them. Or is he not clear. Or is it his mind set. What is it???

#13. 100% containment and treatment = beneficiation. Ind says this. He should extensively talk about this, so that it can be put in writing, then studied.

Break time. #14. ISSUE #1. They want to squawk but they don’t want to put the money up, yet want all profits.

#15. Coverings and liners shall be used subject to exceptions at beginning; repeated protection. Limestone. The DEQ want the flexibility, this should be expanded far beyond extensively. This topic should be hammered to death. They barely even touch on it. Dave Chambers from WMAN covered this somewhat, enough to make me realize it’s importance.

#15.5. Taped stopped; Defining reactive rock; make a proposal. What type of testing. What a mess this topic could be. There should be specialists brought in for just this. Hal’s idea of making people make proposals is great. Lets see who actually makes a proposal… a volunteer philosophy again..

#16. HUGH ISSUE: TAKING. Sites; private lands = are taking was mentioned. This is more then mentioned, it is mentioned at first, but then blown up. Ind rocks on his butt, face turns red, twist his body, eyes now alert. It is interesting to watch him. (most of the time he sits quiet) Have to pay the mineral company for their mineral rights. New Industry man in corner says; legislators labored 4 days arguing over 90 million, therefore they are not interested in this topic at all. Then why don’t those legislators resign. This topic is not over with. Sleeping bear dunes had to pay 90 million for the loss of mineral rights. “taking issue”. DNR = took this land under the dune.

The inherent Natural areas Why are some areas un-mineable, Hal says, and makes page 5. a satisfying look, “its these rules that will protect the areas”. Yet he was not quite clear. This topic should have been hammered to death. For example, where are the examples, how and why.

Private owned mineral rights is taking, limits available. What a joke, who own them.

#17. Never mine from a lease = taking versed create a law. The leases the State issued with dispute of development rights verses none. Ind attacks Envagain. Another person cannot even express a dispute of the principle of lease. The state does what it wants with little input from surrounding individual, neighboring. The State never could touch this one, because of this guilt. Yet, as an industry developing, all issues must and I repeat must be hammer and cycled to death.

#18. ISSUE: Inspections: where is the money. I shake my head. Hal brought up issue of no inspection (my thought) verses township loss of power = submit #19. an alternative in writing Hal says. Citizens inspection. Env was seriously listened too, in this case. She spoke of all the people wondering how to watch over the mining. Hal told a story of #20. the DEQ has a budget restriction. Again Hals response is excellent here. But I wonder if I have the time. I also wonder who will make those responses. It will be interesting next meeting.

#20.5. ISSUE: Water fluctuation was admitted by Ind.. focused on the location. I kind of forgot this, but I think it is just the point that each site is unique and need subsequent though about the principle of “unique”. The DEQ is inconsistent, which cannot occur.. period….. Site specific for studding for water flow. This reflects the YD and its unique character.

#21. Hugh ISSUE: Joe Maki expressed how his rules leave him the flexibility to judge. Leaving it up to an applicant he says (this may be OK.). BUT, Joe Make “says that will be the cleanest mine ever” Env told me this on March 17th. Envs also said; nearly 9 months ago a friend of a friend said “Joe said” they will have no problem up on the planes – it will be a very dry mine” said a mutual acquaintance.. THIS IS A HUGH PROBLEM. WHY HAS THE DEQ ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND. I WONDER THAT A RULE SHOULD BE ADDED: RULE XXX: WHEN PUBLIC HEARING ARE HELD, THE DEQ MUST NOT HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE BEFORE HAND. IF THEY HAVE THEY WILL BE FIRED AND THE ENTIRE PROCESS WILL START OVER, OR FAIL OR TERMINATE. THIS TOPIC MUST BE HAMMERED TO DEATH. MAYBE ONE WOULD JUST DEMOTE HIM. A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE MUST WAIT FOR PUBLIC INPUT, especially in a contentious situation.

#22. Then don’t issue the permit, Ind says, hum interesting, lets hold them to this. if Ind does not have in the permit for water or birds etc. Ind says, you’ll never make a comprehensive permit.

#22.5. ISSUE: Ind wants page 36 line 17, rule 602 changed. They want an exception to tradition for their advantage (maybe) but when we want something , industry says: this not normal or customary therefore we don’t get our “favor”. Unleveled playing field again. Env lead into; scoping principle which Ind blocked last year during statute.

#23. Another suggestion for guidance. Page 6 #24. DEQ needs to check much more then 1 or 2 times a year… on monitoring. This will illustrate how the DEQ does not volunteer information also, to an extent. Env suggested quarterly. But Hal was quickly writing down 2 a year. Reflective of saving money, cause he does not have money as their budget is so restricted and cut. Hal’s rapidly and aggressively was writing this down. His body language clearly pronounced. Usually he is reluctant to record items or he’s average. This recordation was the quickest of any recordation for 8 sessions now. (I must remind reader that this information is my notes with my understanding of words and actions as I am the one observing.)

#25, #26, #27. At lunch, a conversation with Env and Ind minor (industry). Env told a story about oil pollution spills (opps factor). I asked Ind to respond, and be serious cause I was testing him in a nice way. He gave good traditional answers, but none that were outside the box which could have illustrated how Industry does not want to spend any more money then necessary. This is what is happening right now in these meetings. Ind did not volunteer information, he did not reach out, only in the normal perceived ways. Which is not thinking outside the box. Bring the industry up to speed. I thought. Also, will Ind speak “without reputation (fear)”; the pushing or lack of time.

#28. It is an interesting thought = is the DEQ shell shock, that’s why they have gone too far the other way of being too lenient?. This is because of all the complaining by the public at the DNR/DEQ. Industry has them shaped to respond to industry or reduce control. Imagine a pendulum: industry wants less hassle all around = building contractors want less zoning code, timber co. want easier stream crossing rules, medicine want less controls, on and on one goes. This attitude is all pervasive. Even Casperson personally explained to me how he got after Hal Fitch. Next; legislators cut funds to the DEQ, I here they cut substantially. So, the signs are being made to Fitch…. Especially when a law is written. And the pendulum moves the other way. Toooooooo loosen up controls. In my mind this is coming at the wrong time and place. Especially place.

Remote data or remote sensing. DEQ checks 2 times a year, plus rain events, and just passing by. Env says, the public is concerned about lack of checking on monitoring which is being done so infrequently. Env struggled so about the public talking with here about what’s going on behind the fence and how can the public view things wrong from behind the fence. Here, the public could sit on a fire tower and watch.. but such is not presented. (when one presents harebrain ideas, other ideas can come forth. The human mind can work in strange ways.)

#29. Extensions: of mines be put back into operation.

#30. Comparing mining to auto industry; therefore they should have paved areas etc, for mining sites. It’s an industry park with all the consequences. Ind and others speak of the laws that govern industry and give them the rights they have cause they are an industry., and occasionally we don’t know what to say to such expressions. The point I am thinking about is: so, if indeed an industry, lets look at all of em. Many have paved roads with sewers and all sorts of page 7 infrastructure for their being. They are usually bad places (environmentally) with contaminants everywhere. It is inconsistent to me for industry in our meetings to use legal principles advantageous to themselves to argue and push their point on one hand, then expect not to take the consequences of what industry does on the other hand.. It is the argument and badgering that we receive. Env is usually good at turning this point around to the industry people. Yet why is the industry point even presented… answer is unleveled playing field. Further, I wonder how Env is switching, in some unknown way. Is there something I do not know. Probably.

#30.1 The goal is to protect the environment during shutdown.

#30.2 I would dis-trust the State in holding and spending monies correctly.

#31. I think at times (many) the industry appears fair but their level of experience is so much more then the environmental groups (persons). This is a terrible unleveling point. It is interesting to note: Ind and Ind can illustrate behavior about trust and “volunteerism” but I still feel it is controlled because it is “selective”. With Ind it is limited (few) and with Ind, he is much more, excepting lunch time experience.

Tax (property) issues are murky. It is entertaining

#32. If an accident, then is the mine destroyed and there is limited security therefore the company leaves and consequently the people are left holding the bag… the property tax is lost too. Example given by Env A car is use as security to pay car insurance. This conversation was unclear , and erratic, but at least it was had. Maybe something will evolve form it.

#33. Env talked of, we as volunteer are here more-so then some of the people who cannot wait to leave. Sometimes these people act like they are in pure hell being here trying to solve problems. This is her point, I agree.

#34. Another perception(point of view) next day: With issues at statute, next some are cleared, next others are added at rules, yet why are they their. They shouldn’t be there, but since they are, the statue/law is bad, therefore a bad law and rules consequently I should not communicate/volunteer. Should I? I have to live with a fair law but this law is not fair, so how can I make it fair. Industry has rarely been fair, sulfide mining industry, it has a terrible track record. So it is not fair. If I give it more information will it become fair. What looks more and more fair to me, is the Wisconsin law of 10 years no harm, and 10 years following with no pollution, and prove this. Such is fair.

1/12/05 page 1 Rules #5 Personal notes

These are my personal notes and opinions, I repeat my personal notes. I do not feel like re-reading this stuff, cause it is so long, and poorly written, and the contents disturbs me at times. Do not send this to another if I have sent it to you. This collection of words is intended to give general ideas or concepts or points for recollection of the rules process as I view it. The large print is from the actual rules meetings or evening there. The small print is later interpretation.

Disclaimer notice: This e-mail was/is from Richard Hendricksen sent under the e-mail address of rchendricksen@charter.net. This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender, delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies. This e-mail is only an opinion and should be treated as just that, an opinion. If you disagree with what is written you need to respond to Richard Hendricksen. If I have inadvertently misquoted or have misinterpreted any information, which you know to be inaccurate or wrong, you are responsible to contact me so that I can make a correction, clarification, a retraction or amend my comments.

I am sitting outside of the table, to the side. #1. Hal just wants to discuss to an extent then pass onward. He DEQ will make his decision later as he sees fit. Issues are to be touched on, then ideas can be presented if desired. He will decide what view he will use, again as he sees fit. #1.2. There appears no “concenious” as to these issues. Subsidence is one. #2. As long as the affected area was not disturbed by subsidence. Issue is: affected property verses mining property.

Conflict of language. #3. Steve Hoffman explained things again: “Hal says he did not even think of this” I state this because Hal is to write the rules as he desires, yet he is so unqualified or does not know or cannot see which seems so wrong to me for such an important industry being formed. Then he looks at change. Steve Hoffman again confirmed this enlightenment to Hal. Joe Maki, asks questions about Steves points: the point is “the DEQ is still learning” yet then want to do things themselves. #4. Yet the DEQ is receptive to input at times. Hal says, “ I may not have quite understood the intent” #5. Then Ind warns of the law and danger of it. Like water bureau and this law. How does each agency conflict with the statute These rules apply to itself, not other laws. NEROPA, water laws, fed laws. #6. Aquifer: define significant was discussed but the water etc (can’t figure out my note writing). The courts determine the answer. #7. Beneficiation: add is not limited to, EPA says, there is not much case law about one of these words, again complexity. #8. If banks fails then what, Hal does not seem to say. Banks don’t fail but Bonds fail. Hal says, we cannot eliminate every single risk. #8.5. Ind just made a volunteer comment. Page 2 #9. Cultural, historic issue is again raised; Industry wants a list but Ind wants this not so (must be from another point of view). EPA and Ind disagree. EPA points out the value of Human made things to be regulated. This is the huge issues that just floats along. Hoffman is the only one that can get anywhere on it, yet he really doesn’t because nothing is written or changed. Ind is there to battle/contradict each time Hoffman presents. Environmental individuals don’t make any headway at all with issues, or Hal. How can I explain this topic: it appears in degrees, and even then I cannot see to the extent I would like. I realized this later (when typing up these notes) that Hoffman presents his self and data with authority of sorts, but his information either goes over Hals head, or it sinks in, or it is challenged by Ind (industry). The Environmental groups do not even begin to touch Hoffmans knowledge…. Yet on other topic they do take hold (Hal listens). The point here is: Hoffman cannot handle it all. There are voids. The environmentalists don’t even know it., detailed mining topics. Although Env seems to know some., and the rest are limited in how to respond.

#10. Env continues to debate this “cultural” and there is still not answer. Ind wants dates and does not like “determined to be eligible to be listed”. Now, they (this is not John but either Hal or industry) don’t want to spend more time on this. They talk about the state historical person of some sort. #12. EPA: you don’t want the Feds to supercede the process cause the Feds will “mess it up” #11. What about sites of the future; talk about inconsistencies again. How we handle it: Ind says is the issue. p. 4 line 18 still inconsistent (I think). Process is the Key. Flag this, see attorney general.

#13. ISSUE; p.4 line23 Hal wants word definition in context. This was repeatedly talked about. Even excessively talked about. “Are things definable”, Hal asks. Look at the indirect unconscious admissible principle here of, a task much greater then one’s self; yet for the first hour to two of today’s meeting the DEQ speaks of how they will do things on their own. This is more then an issue it is stupidity. Based on this point along this entire process should be redone. Especially concerning the Indian issue. Env and Env give very clam and clear explanation – well Hal. (?). EPA says there is uncertainty. “How does a reasonable man get a list ahead of time” What is Federal Law. #14. Ind says: if used as a challenge in courts then one matter counts, but if you say you won’t challenge in court, then what? So, here we are talking about court action. Court action, mind you. It is a threat, veiled. By this I mean: using the court system to attain one’s desires. I must ask myself why? Why in such a setting? Are we here to threaten one another? The answer is supposed to be NO. Yet Ind talks of this. Secondly; Env expresses , one cannot shut of court action because it is a basic principle of US citizens to sue one another. I think, or suspect, Ind is trying to say, you Environmentalists are trying to set him up for lawsuits. It is ultimately this cat and mouse game. #10, #13. ISSUE: How can we define this issue. But Hal wants objective criteria, maybe, Hal does not use the list. (this list principle is an attempt by Env to define the word Cultural, which he and I were in on two or three sessions ago. Ind wants items listable, so that he can present data which is logical. To an extent. It is obvious that the word “cultural” is a loaded term, and need much discussion, far more then the DEQ is even considering.)

#14.5. P. 5 Line 6; trying to clarify; Ind suggests something. A simple solution Ind suggest but few understand his suggestion. #15. Line 12: define leachable better but Hal wants the concept. EPA can only respond because no-one else seems to know how to respond to Ind. He wants “reactive” comparable to “leachable”. But there are two type of “things” yet again EPA has the knowledgeable to respond with industry. Again = react ability and leachable page 3 = metal mobility. EPA say this. What is the racial but EPA sits there. #16. Limited standards of pollution: contaminated verses the baseline principle. ISSUE: Hal says he is open to any suggestion on this one… the minimal pollution standards and how to word it. To me it appears Hal is unsure if the statute defines this. What is the intent he seems to wonder yet expresses. It is the principle of polluting water below the standards set by the state.

Afternoon; #17. p.6 line 7 Transportation = in the mining area, clarify this, Ind suggested this. 10,000 tons a year, as defined in statute or not disturb more then 1 acre of land. How in the world could anyone in their right mind think to move 10,000 tons of earth. This is like 70 tantum truck loads. This is another example of something wrong. Thank God there is the one acre limit.

#18. What about spillage along a transportation route.

#19. Ind admits that they have disturbed more then 1 acre of land although the law expresses otherwise. Rules group discussion exploration verses mining. There is a distinction between exploration and mining. What about on-going exploration, Ind says. ISSUE: this sure looks like a weakness to me. Hal says he will review this, Env wants this addressed because

#20. Line 22,23 Ind wants something different again, not enough “talent” to answer this question.

#21. Get this statement and there is sarcaristic chuckling: Nothing that says “we cannot improve on the act” people laugh.

#22. ISSUE: page 7 line 22, ground water and surface water

#23. Page 8 Reclaimination line 12 = more legal debate between industry and Environmentalists (E) people. Legal questions are being debated. But the truth sure seem unknown. ISSUE Mitigation was flagged, this went on extensively. #24. ISSUE: Page 10 Env brought up REPUTATION but Hal won’t address this issue outside Michigan. Ind argues this and does not want this. (frightenly logical and tragic) Env keeps wanting a greater financial assurance – but the industry keeps arguing. Someone says the DEQ takes the worst case senero (to make industry look good) but then everyone howls. EPA questions but Env says the statute does not say so. Hal says to move on, abruptly.

#25. Someone spoke of the Champion Mill????? For the sake of beneficiation.

#26. ISSUE: Page 13 Enforcement measures line 6. Ind doesn’t like this … page 4 it is a prohibitation against creating a facility, he says. (again; another example or turn at blocking communication and badgering and confusing the issue. This waste time and is futile. In my mind, one clearly wants to protect the environment, and consequently one wants to prevent the facility from occurring. It is not the reverse, being industry has the right to create facility. Prohibitation IS trying to stop such occurrences. Readers: if you do not know what a facility is, you must change and learn it) Why won’t you accept this. Env is not being considered, while Ind gets their issue. Ind debates this. Env’s suggestion is fought reflecting by industry again. A permitted release should not cause a facility. #27. Is it that they don’t want to talk about pure waters??? We went back to Envs issue and passed it, but was it because they did not want to talk about pure waters. #28. Ind attorney said: legislators may just scratch the point in the statue where the rules shall be complete by Dec 31. He thinks it shall be amended or “something”. I don’t totally understand is comments that I overheard. Afternoon: #29. ISSUE: Ind speaks of legislators again in 1995 was one decision but Env reinforces that today is today’s with sulfide mining as a different issue. I totally agree. Page 13, LINE 23-29 very complex, again legalize #30. I think this is example of escaping liability and responsibility through modern corporate law, example is nefarious persons finding loopholes.

#31. Impairment or turning down a mine. Env is asking Hal to add a more detailed discussion of this compared to just line 21,22 page 13. She gave suggestions that Hal turned down, but we received a copy, but they were the excluded ones. On page 3 rule 201 (8) The department shall deny a permit if it determines that a mining operation will pollute, impair or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in those resources, including where: etc. Line 21,22 Env ask for consistency. What is the standard for rejection of a permit. Reclamation get repeated, why not repeat this on rejection. Cultural language was similar. What is the bench mark for rejection. Are there features (sites) that cannot be mined. Ind: special site can be listed. Limitation are at NEAPA. There are ecological sites so sensitive that they could not recover. #32. Flush out the language, NEAPA standards.

#33. Porky pine mountains standards, lease process. Ind is looking at past history again, not considering Sulfide mining. I disagree the laes Ind process because this is sulfide mining #34. When you destroy private property eco system, this is not litigated (sued)

#35. Goals of statute verses 1. changes, 2 organize state of

#36. ISSUE: They are specifically talking about Yellow Dog (all around it but they cannot speak of the name outright) because of its unique character. Submit comments Hal says. NEPEA can pollute, impair, and destroy #37. State of Mich = what is the standard EPA says. Page 5 They won’t look at the Yellow Dog as an example #38. Hal says, there are cause when we can deny a permit, if an ecological

Benefits against Risks, Env asks Whose Benefits #39. Not an easy case to adjudicate

Hal just said he would weigh benefits verses Risks, not clear cut

#40. Public trust, What is the private property rights.

#41. ISSUE: page 14, line 25 Synergistic: I don’t understand why these suggestions by E are turned down and fought so profusely over. Envhas gone through such thought but she has to fight to even look at some alternatives. We need some other mining people to discuss this, even Steve Hoffman (EPA) to objective at it. Example is: why is industry so opposed to this. Here is a prime level of an unleveled playing field AGAIN. We are to be looking at public, health, and welfare yet E people are put down. It could be otherwise if a balanced discussion. The stare could be more stringent was expressed.

#42. Ind suggested = p15 line 12 Standards QAQC Industry has to have the right QAQC, what is the benchmark for denial/refection. QAQC must not be faulty QAQC is very important

#43. No upfront stuff, Hal told

Line 17-19 p 15. did the company assess this information in order to give this to the DEQ #44. What other permits are required, Ind does not want public process to creep in yet the permit (the rushing process by Ind). Yet Ind continues to fight this process but I don’t understand why they fight it….. again. It benefits industry to get public input but they continue to fight this.

#45. EPA says = again, the state needs a bases for rejecting or accepting a permit. It might be in “guidance” so that the decision can be made with some kind of consistence. EPA also says get water and ground water data, 1 year was minimum. Even Ind agrees, but Hal does not give an answer. Everyone is against him but he sits there.

Evening. From memory. What makes Hal tick, Envs asked me. Personally that is. In the whirlpool, I picked on Linda, She is playful, so is Hal. Hal said, it takes a lot of concentration listening all day to all the people, he nods and says. Or mumbles or slightly admits “I’m tired” But you can see: you give him a break and he can continue. He told a simple little joke. #46. Linda says, Hal a very talented man, twice he says something page 6 like” don’t talk about me that way” implying don’t flatter me. But Linda smiles. I said, one man cannot do this, it is an industry forming, you need to listen. They say, the state does not give them any more money, so they do the best they can. “we cannot even hire a secretary” I told him about the word Impact and he said, it has multiple meanings. I said it did not. We agreed to disagree, yet he said, accepted, that I write my comments down and mail them to him. Earlier, he asked why was I so quiet.

During the session- late. A beautiful thing happened. Envwas discussing a point of: she wanted a addition: a paragraph: repeated rule 201 (8) On page 3 rule 201 (8) The department shall deny a permit if it determines that a mining operation will pollute, impair or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in those resources, including where: etc but Hal was opposing. She said it the most sweet kind and motherly way, yet frustrated like a mother could be, yet it slipped out of her mouth, accidental “just do it”, and nearly everyone laughed and many miminicked humorously her, even Ind and Ind too. “Just do it” someone outright said about her kids but barely audible, there was such a pleasant laughter. She was trying to retract her statement but laughter continued. Most has to have fun with the statement. It also was a typical refection by Hal of environmental ideas. But it was so strange, it was done in such a ungodly beautiful way. It is when you try to get children to do something and they continue to play or ask the wrong questions or refuse something and finally after extensive effort, you say in pure frustration: “just do it” Don’t thing about it, do it. “She also dropped her head, tilting it sideways, all in frustration, she was inaudibly mumbling to herself. As a mother would only do. Hal would not do what she asked.

P21 one 14/15 Industry gave here which was nice.

#47. Line 26 p. 22: the state should express how frequently the company should inspect the liners. Steve brought this up. Very important point because it could be important because of later legal challenges. E. people did not know this which industry did not present it. ISSUE. (what if the state wanted inspections but the company said, only every 7 years and the state wanted it every 6 months or 1 year) (then the issue could be challenged in court)(another example of not enough experts)

Placement of monitoring wells, there should be no restriction EPA Ind asks #47. Joe Macki says, he has all kinds of power/authority to check water. He page 7 gave an excellent environmental answer. I was impressed with his “people “answer. #48. They are talking about “wasting” your own land verses point of compliance. This is Ind destroying there own land implying the effects to others. Such is not said thought.

Next day. 4/13/05 Group wants to get to issues and not get bogged down in detail. Which does happen frequently, meaningless details. More regulations was a joke We have deadlines.

SORE is early May. P. 20 line 4-12: Water going into a mine and water going out, water budget. Hal says to slip it in. #49. “damage” EPA says it is a legal form, they fear the use of this word. Subsidence. Ind, Ind wants to take it out, make it unclear. Env says: the rules are suggested that water is expendable. He must me unexpendable. Unintentional subsidence #50. Unplanned = verses planed subsidence EIA must have subsidence or bench marks.

P 21 line 6 Mining waste = Steve says characteristics verses specific parts. C #51. Ind has to explain this cause E groups don’t understand, but how can they get information if not for Ind, the Fox. #51.5. EPA gives another suggestion #52. Compliance verses monitoring. I am stating this because this illustrates another time contributed by a objective mining person, verses bias industry. Illustrating one characteristic of the uneven playing field. This is the only person who can represent the environmental interest to even a balance degree. Monitoring is identified but compliance is critical. #53. Unique aspects of sulfide mining. Can the company demonstrate how they can clean the waters before…. Example of Septic system is a good example Planned verses unplanned discharge Set specifics that water people are stressing. Ind argues that this is just like any other industry while Env says this sulfide mining industry is unique. Env is correct. Env says the Legislators intend was the DEQ was/is to “protect the public good”. Env says, if something is “smacked down” (his points) then that is his only point. Otherwise , let others decide. Page 23 Point of Compliance What is Part 201 ?????? If contaminated water is at eh monitoring point…..

ISSUE: see 5 (1) c, 5 = both pink in mins plan ????????????

#53. Unique nature of Sulfide mining, AGAIN #54. Env refers to statue that protects the interests of the people page 8 #55. Ind express the legislators intend = again this is to point out his point of view or is it not. How correct may he be.

#56. This monitoring issue has continued and continued. Ind questions it again. Is the change Monitoring looks as if it s and Issue not resolving, Hal says. Ind continues to argue and appears to pout. They have a scope, Ind can use scope but do others? #57. It sure appears to me that E groups are still put down. Ann suggestion was logical for the protection of “the people” It continues to amaze me the major reason or purpose of a group gathering like this, compared to the intent. ??? Env Indian jokes and says ”I think we’re fine with that” Ind laughs because Env is making decision for Industry.

Steve EPA just left. ISSUE: Minor expressed a good point (this time) referring to Envs point of filling back in a mine pit. Controlling the mining situation. Ind also brought a good point. This is dealing with , reactive rock.

#58. ISSUE: Unplanned subsidence verses planned subsidence. Protected uses = eliminated they were , restoration of aquifers since there is

#59. ISSUE: Env presented line 27. She suggested a good idea of sorts to help the process but Ind rejects. Env says, its not worth arguing about. She offers to help, they turned it down because of Ind

#60. It is unquestionable to me that the principle of the Statue saying that we are dealing with a unique situation or process or statue; whatever, it is unique. Yet the terrible conflict is: the industry treats it as not unique.

Afternoon.

#61. Part 22. another separate law we should know Ind had this, He gave it to Env. Another example of rushing. A comment and rational discussion #62. There is a powerful important discussion occurring, front end/backend. “all” Env says this is “willful” changes of things. 60209 6(b) This is the most intense I have seen Env. #63. You cannot leave a situation where you can mine and leave and then. (abandoning the site) #64. Look to zoning ordinance is to be used after the mine leaves = if they look to zoning why not accept zoning now for its use, by Ind attorney. #65. Sacrifice zones #66. We need to degrade the ground water. Industry implies and nearly outright says, or one just as soon say, …. Degrade it. It is very intense in the room, the DEQ is quiet like a mouse, and there is

#65.not humor at all. There is a difference that I have not seen yet amongst all these people. Some Page 9. are acting like betrayal… Yet such is so overused. I don’t know what to call this kind of smoking…. Simmering. Permit damage (permanent) verses temporary. #66. Walk away from site it (one) must be able to use that aquifer, YD cannot be used but other sites may used across the Western UP. #67. 4 statement support (from statute) not destroying “permit” a aquifer. (this means a usable aquifer) This is the concept that YD is a Ruse and Sham and it cannot be mined. If these people could just talk about YD then they could resolve this (somewhat)… but does Ind then file for a permit.

Again, This looks more and more terrible - Ind knows mining issues- our attorneys don’t know this specific points – There is just too muck knowledge to know. For nearly an hour now, only the few people who have a minimum, (of concepts could partake) Continued release of stuff. Listen to the DEQ tapes (if I did this, maybe I could get something additional, but it is too much work, to hell with it) It is so ungodly complex. I couldn’t write this fast, and it was very difficult to comprehend without study.

English language. Finally someone said this, it was Env. The point was: This law is mutilating our English language, or this group has mutilated the law with its poor use of words and sentences. There was a little chuckle, but most people sat quiet, as if barely recognizing what he was saying. He did say, these words do not mean this. He is shaking his head in disgust. He is questioning the DEQ and wondering how can they interpret his pointed out statute language words and get the meaning they are getting. Env is naturally using his form of communication, which is a repeated style. Somewhat above a monotone, but repeated politely and coherently. He is one of the best communicators. I wonder, he seems to kick into gear when talking before others, as in a group. I do the reverse. It is frightening how Hal Fitch sits there, appearing to listen, but continues onward; with nearly no regard for the conflicting words he is hearing. But who know, maybe he is seeing the conflicts but just is not telling us. I wonder how a person can be so inconsistent. What appears most disturbing is: the environmental people here and not agreeing at all with the DEQ and Industry on some extremely important points. Later, will our government express in the end how well the groups worked together in order to write these rules. The senate said this when they finished the statute; as opposed to, I know Env was upset with the statute, but Env was in the middle, (maybe). These two are not saying anything which is also disturbing to me. There is no question in my mind, after witnessing this rules process that a very poor jobs is being done. At this point I give it a D or C-. It is unfortunate cause it could be much better. I will stand up and testify in Lansing as to the poor job of this rules process, compared to what it could be. It does not have my consent or approval…. Period. At this time: I would suggest, before a subcommittee of the House and Senate and Governor and Court and Fed legislator, that this group meets for 2 weeks or so, with Dave Chambers, Steve Hoffman, and other too. This time hash over what has already been written. And this time not be afraid to confront each other and put each other down, or have vigorous communication, but politely it must be. What about the hidden agendas. What about ostracizing some or the one.?

O discharge verses #68. There is some anticipitated release, Hal looks at it this way. Industry wants some release while if a special site then What?.

Although Ind wants to ???? Hal is in a

27th next date, 3 days Waste from a dump verses Liners are from industrial places, not.

Afterwards The point of no mine on the YD is the issue. If they can recognize that they cannot , then they can study the rest of the UP. There are just some sites that are impossible to mine. Yet even this topic cannot be handles by industry or even.

Immediately afterwards, 3 mining persons surrounded Hal, pointing out to him how the statute should be amended to make the changes they want. I found this comment tragic. Here mining interests have so manipulated matters all along, and now here for the last couple hours they lost the war. So now they want to change the rules.

I taped a car conservation on the way back from St Ignace. Here is our discussion: We are discussing testing an aquifer and the determination of its usefulness. Mining area (the aquifer) verses the effected area (how the aquifer reaches outward) , or the compliance (how do they examine the two) area. This was a huge topic occurring and I had wished I had taped it at the rules meeting. There is an exclusion to this for the mining people; and the mining people were trying to capitalize on this, and/or change the law to get what they wanted.

The point is: if an aquifer is outside of the compliance area and you harm it, then you have to restore it. But if you pollute an aquifer and it is in your own property, then you are OK. Nothing says you have to restore the aquifer. This was the issue at Flambow in Wisconsin, and this is what people were arguing about here. In Wisconsin, they polluted into the river, and the river diluted the toxicity before anything could get to edge of the compliance area, and therefore be tested.

The next question was “what happens to the land after they mine” do they give it to Yellow Dog Water Shed. Do they give it to the State. Ind does not want it. Who wants severely contaminated land? So, Ind defaults on property tax. Now, the mine finally begins to spread out its waste. Where does all the waste go. Into Powell Township. So, Government wanted today 30 to $60,000,000 for his township share. If he receives some of his blood money, should not he also pay the consequences in the future. So, when the lawsuits start coming in from Powell Township, let Michigammee township pay till the end of their days, cause they reaped of the profits along with the State of Michigan. Ind is long gone.

The point is, you can pollute an aquifer if it is on your own property. How do you test an aquifer? We continued to talk about how industry nearly always gets its way. Its entertaining but tragic to listen to us talk. Yet I have said this over and over to you readers. About the hearing in the future. It was unclear.

Page 1 These are my personal notes and opinions, I repeat my personal notes. I do not feel like re-reading this stuff, cause it is so long, and poorly written, and the contents disturbs me at times. Do not send this to another if I have sent it to you. This collection of words is intended to give general ideas or concepts or points for recollection of the rules process as I view it. The large print is from the actual rules meetings or evening there. The small print is later interpretation.

Disclaimer notice: This e-mail was/is from Richard Hendricksen sent under the e-mail address of rchendricksen@charter.net. This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender, delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies. This e-mail is only an opinion and should be treated as just that, an opinion. If you disagree with what is written you need to respond to Richard Hendricksen. If I have inadvertently misquoted or have misinterpreted any information, which you know to be inaccurate or wrong, you are responsible to contact me so that I can make a correction, clarification, a retraction or amend my comments.

4/27/05 Rules # 6 Issues unresolved

#1. Allowing the aquifer to be a treatment form. Using the ground as a filter.

We will do this right DEQ will ultimately made its called Governed by part 22 What is about the standards ALL mining activities #2. Bonding is a huge issue, it appears- (I don’t understand this topic that well) Full bond up front. Will companies in the future have bonding throughout the process or will it be reduced. To build a statute good enough that a superfund is not created, #3. Skip says. Discussed this with EPA (Steve). Skip asks industry to respond, they give a complex answer: Industry, Ind had agreed that it was ALLL on the front end. Sitting the bar high enough. This is protecting the environment and committing to such at the beginning of a project. #4. They continue to discuss what was discussed during Statute time periods. As best as their memory was. They ask each other back and forth. This stuff is all on tape, but maybe not mine. The state is taping it all. The intent here is to do what they had agreed, and there seemed not disagreement. No E people spoke up. It appeared OK, so this must mean they agree with the statute. #4, #5, ISSUE: phased bonding; if other mining does phased bonding why not phased bonding here in Sulfide mining, but this is sulfide mining. Phased bonding was thought to be agreed not to be done during statute discussions. They usually agree as to what they talked about during statute time, but not always. It is curious when they disagree. They look at each other and wonder, and continue as if there is no issue. Very occasionally either will talking strongly. Although many times, nearly mostly when appropriately someone will read the statute, and then they will nod. It gets humorous watching this: they nearly say, did I say that, and they nearly laugh. They wonder what they were thinking, humorous and serious in the same vain. #6. Minimum containment, nothing beyond the last liner. Page 2. #7. Does this standard become different then other standards, Ind thinks this is the issue. #8. Are certain levels safe for the environment No contradiction of standards Start with goal of 0 discharge Issue: Liners become the issue Do you address this as a landfill Protection verses existing treatment What was after the fact Sooner or later the mining site will leak, Steve says. What are the permitted standards, Risks are what. Are there situations where a liner is not preferred $9. ISSUE What are the results after the contaminates are occurring. How or to what extent do you clean up a spill. What is the action after a spill If your discharge is too harmful: what is the effect or consequences, do you have the right to cancel the permit. #10. Social Economic effects: We don’t have the expertise to assess SE. DEQ says this. SE is part of anti-degradation. We have struggles with SE Leave it out except for other parts. Again, all DEQ responses. #11. ISSUE: Since you are struggling and since you/we are here, and an since 15 times its mentioned in the statute. Why cannot it be studied. Some places in the UP. May want a mine while other may not. Disagree with the scope of things #12. WHERE IS IT DONE; SOCIAL ECONOMIC (I had my hand up for 10 minutes, wanting to speak. Hal would not call on me. It was like a feeding frenzy: who could jump in there the fastest could speak. Then Hal calls a break, I went up to him afterwards and he apologized for not calling on me, but he said, he did not see my hand. And he did not. He was so occupied with the snapping feeding frenzy style of communication.) #13. Do we have the authority to adjudicate this factor. #14. Very difficult issue: Skip says, Wolf pack has presented its stuff he knows. We can have social Economic studies; Wolf pack has been restricted to an extent. You have to look in order to see. What happens beyond 20 years… one need to look. These people won’t call on me, my hand has been raised for 10 minutes now. SE continues Should 632 have a mechanize for refection of a permit. #12. Env speaks They move forward and do not call on me; I have to interrupt if I want to speak. #13. Afternoon.: At lunch Skip said: the process is open and page 3 can be extended in order to create a good product. He told us this at our table, as he had lunch with us. And actually he said the same thing at the beginning of today’s sessions. I though it was exceptionally courteous and nice that he would sit down with us. I have come to respect him and like him. We told Skip how things are going better now that he is here, but Skip tried or seemed to say: Oh, it’s not that way. He questioned how he, himself could not influence the meeting that much. We also talked about the Simon Trout crossing spill. #14. Issue: Actually this point of Skip being there is unwaveringly or disturbingly true. There were sever to many times when Skip would intercede and describe or ask for description. He seeking information or giving information. To me it is unbelievable the unnecessary struggles we go through, and that if Skip were present, we would have cruised right along. I will try evaluate this point further. Later. #15. Rule 404, p43, 45 “good cause” by the DEQ Consequences of not listing #16. Part 632, should state its own standards because of Sulfide mining. Members don’t seem to understand this point. Sulfide mining is different and worse then any other. Yet defendants of this mining are continually using this excuse, saying this is normal mining, verses I don’t believe legislators intended such. Nor would the people of Michigan. This “put down” occurs very frequently. It is a way of shutting off communication. Just this point alone is good enough for me to call for an entire new process with different leaders. I’d have to estimate, but within a half hour period, here on standards, I’ll guess environmentalists were put down 5 times. Such is a terrible conversation style of which is unjust for such important meetings. How and why this continues is just plain sick. #17. The conflict exists: compare one statute with another. Part 632 verses 201. Env wants more clarity verses Ind wants less clarity. But this is Sulfide mining (to me) therefore which is strongest. (to me, the statute intent was and is, and its direct meaning is: that the laws here be stronger because of the dangers, yet these people, industry, want to make it even). It looks to me that diverse attorneys should talk about this. #18. Skip wants to fill gaps. Steve says to go to the attorney general, which is the correct answer. #19. Skip criticized politely Env, but Env keeps responding to Ind where Ind is who he is. Env brought up an excellent response of point of compliance part 115 #20. ISSUE: P 48line 9: 150 ft. from point of compliance verses different language, such as an industrial land fill. The compliance point should be at the point which is as close as possible. (This is fascinating because behind the scenes is Env from Wisconsin who knows Ind history and the tricks they played their. Now, here, you are getting no volunteer effort from industry to correct that action which was there in Wisconsin. This corrective action is brought out solely by Env. Ask your self, why hasn’t Ind or any industry brought up this loophole that Ind used in Wisconsin for pollution of that environment. ? Thank God we have Env here to argue this point. I wonder how many points we are missing and what will be the next loophole industry will use. I hope one can see this as the clear example of an unleveled playing field. One that in truth is the opposite of the intent of the principle of unification of the vying differing groups. Ultimately that industry is here as some sort of trick.) #21, #22. How much leaching creates a violation. Should a point page 4 of compliance, Ind – be philosophically debated. Triggers, wells: Env says compliance must be right there. They are trying to discuss weather a mine is un-permitable, therefore implied #23. “taking”. #24. Minimal leakage; What is “detection”. Some leakage at the bottom, how do you deal with this leakage. Ind says: Contingency plan are detected. Define detection according to Steve --- you must deal with this. If heavily weighted then determine this. #25. This is a good discussion: I think it is cause Skip is here. His mind appears excellent. #26. ISSUE: Contingency plan: are they existing or something else. Background, ought to be the goal. The goal, weather permitted or not. #27. WHAT IF A VIOLATION: WHAT ABOUT THE LOSS OF THE USE OF THAT STREAM PERMENENTLY. ISSUE: contingency plan is very simple, as Envsays, and it should not be such. It should never be the loss of all kinds of things related to the social economical items. #28. Skip talked of monitoring; Threshold as a trigger. Then the Dept. must do the appropriate action. 201 is Duty for Due care. Corrective action may not be the reaction by the Dept. How do you determine that detection is injurious. #29. When is something done (if “detected harm”) when it reaches facility and harming. #30. A site dependent factor, Skip says #31. ISSUE: Anti degradation, cannot allow any factors to degrade Lake Superior. Cause of high Quality Water Skip is using??? #32. Pollution does exist, or we cannot say “not to mining” #33. ISSUE: Skip did say: if anyone know the answer, please speak up, reflecting experts were needed. #34. We will be permitting the release of substances. But aren’t discharges based on the quality of the site #35. No degradation above background, Env says Illinois (state) has no detection, from landfill data. Standards for degradation.

#36. Env and Ind go out together to talk privately, later Skip went out there.

#37. During lunch Skip also said, the floor is the minimum for our page 5 state. We will match at least any other States minimum. Yet Env laugh and explains to me privately, each state thinks its state is the best state. What a joke he thinks, and he knows. #38. What is waste rock. What are the characteristics of back fill. Backfilling above or below water tables should be addressed Steve says.. #39. ASTM Standards, what are they. #40. DEQ may hire an independent expert to evaluate a mine site or something or the leach-ability of stuff. Ind (part) is very thorough, careful, but Hal says they have already found someone for this third party objective person. This is a point +- regarding experts. Mine permit application for mythology. #41. 4/28/05 Soil liners verses clay. Mixing the soils, for liners, rule 115 for landfills. Type III industrial land fills. Goal to prevent leachent. #42. Wonders about GOAL verses PLAN, Hal wonders, I personally assume. #43. Type II verses Type III landfills???? Hal says, (in a sarcastic way) why not have the most stringent for industrial sites all over the state, then Env says, we are not at these meeting at this time. (implying we would if the opportunity was there) Hal laughs. This illustrates Hals lack of concern for the E, environmentalists. Hal agues that we don’t need the most restrictive protections. Now, he point blank (Hal) argues that we don’t need the “most restrictive” (I cannot remember why I repeat this, so one may have to listen to the tapes) (there must be some meaning to point blank) #44. Ind now brings up technical points which I don’t understand. I wonder that this diverts the topic from “most restrictive”. The whole dam issue is to absolutely “mimimize” that risks. One might want a liner and neturalize the cid #45. The debate between 115 and other statutes continues. #46. “GOAL OF LINERS AND LEACHETE FROM GETTING INTO ACQUIFER” Env expressed. They must stay on this topic. #47. ISSUE: Hal, are we stuck on the language. Of different statutes: 632verses 115 #48. Env implies Hal of talking in circles, but then Hal says Env is talking in circles.(it was psychologically fascinating and indeed an opportunity, but it goes nowhere) This circles is absolutely the issue. This is unfortunate for Hal to “somewhat” shut off Env just cause Hal has the power. This is absolutely terrible on a subtle unconscious level. Env is now quiet. He comes form Wis. And does not need to be here but is here. Because of “help” of some sort. Finally, Env just spoke. I’m not real sure of this point thought, it is my opinion. Surely the two did express such, thought. #49. The concept of liners continues; the technology is there to be studied and the experts are not here. “Goal is to prevent leach ate”

Ind expresses this. Page 6 #50. ISSUE; “Here is the opportunity to develop a totally new preventive and protective mining opportunity to protect the environment.” The difference between a goal and criterion. Hal says. Asking about other states, again, this is looking to others instead of solving the problems themselves. Envasked, Steve and Maki, if they know of other states. #51. Env tried to shut off communication, again.

The company: Not lock yourself in. #52. HUGE ISSUE: Maki explained: if you give a specific statement for mine environment protection and the company follows those instructions, but then you have a disaster, then whose fault is it (the states). The company follow the procedure so it is not responsible but the state is cause it gave the rules. One wants to make the company responsible, any way you look at it. Joe explained, the landfill people, a group like us (here in this room), now regret how they did their rules (in another part of the state). Now, readers ask your self the question, why does Maki say this: answer is, cause our own state does not know what it is doing and does not have the budget and these rules are being written to hastily. The conversation are great at this time. (this is large print, from notes) The conversation is circling around. Performance standards / design: the issue is resolving right now form the landfill issue, giving the DEQ this performance verses design as clarified with Env is: the mining process is not to pollute verses not telling the mining company how they are not to pollute or not telling them how to protect the environment but that they must protect the environment. Who were the landfill group people This part of the meeting is easy and appropriate; no experts “outside” are needed. It is as if specific topics desperately need assistance weather substantial or a small amount. #53. 3 years to keep reports won’t be changed cause it was in the statute ---- it’s a moot point according to some. #54. ISSUE; Notice to public is said by Envand Env is still an issue. A tool is “the contested case hearing” other SORE ruling apply here. A petition must be specific on what is demanded or wanted clarified. If a decision is administrative complete but its challenged here, then what. P58 line 15; 60 days was debated, Know or reasonably should have known. LETTER TO THE EDITOR

#55. Env said, the second day after lunch; He said this to Skip page 7. yesterday at lunch; each State says it has the best environmental laws on the books. Env laughs and says, Wisconsin thinks it has the best, Minn. Thinks it has the best. Skip asks Env; how does he feel about Wis. Environmental law. He was somewhat wondering. He laughs at all their answers. Afternoon:Financial Assurance #56. I spoke with Ind, the representative for townships, he said, our organization is in the middle ground. Then Env said, wait till a mine is downstate and see how they respond or what about a nuclear waste site. He, hem and hauled, speaking of the value of minerals. So I then said, lets’ sell our great lakes water…. We are selling our minerals. #57. Ind says to be “consistent” if we are consistent then we are to sell our minerals: are we not also to sell our Great Lakes Water. The word consistent. ISSUE, ISSUE, ISSUE Statute does not contemplate worse case scenario, Ind Says. Again industry not wanting responsibility. Unanticipitated events: Wis. Couldn’t come to an solution. Steve says it does not address catastrophic failure. Person see no end to these catastrophic. Trying to determine or discuss this. Tying to prevent something after bankruptcy. Policy and faith in bonding: Running out of bond money, Env says. This is a bad topic. Monies or bond are questionable. Why continue mining in order to pay for damages caused by itself (the Mine). Going after the company and everything it has. #58. The Bond does have to cover in the contingency plan. A bond cannot cover every worse case scenario. Hal wants middle ground for agreement. Insurance of the company if Catastrophic event. Insurance also can be a scam; Env says catastrophic. DEQ has to collect insurance. Can the company cover everything of the catastrophic event. CATASTOOPHIC EVENT #59. Env is trying to speak, again, he cannot get his expression in while other more aggressive get their words in. #60. Env spoke of the incentive principle to get companies to make a safer site therefore less bonding. But I don’t think they followed his suggestion. There is not the framework. #61. Actual operating company not Ind superiors. Ind Corporate Guarantee

#61. Owner /operator: applicant. Violator. What is page 8. the corporation. Clean up this up front. Parent company is to make a pledge but one cannot get that money cause they are maybe a foreign corporation. Steve says you cannot get money from a corporation who is foreign. #62. Steve, says monies?? I forgot Envhas many comments about financial assurance (FA) Again, Hal says, he is not the expert on this. The expert topic again. #64. ISSUE: Lyne Boyd the DNR lady is quite strong in her belief that minerals are those of the people. I challenged her of; what if we sell great lake water. She says, the people won’t go for that, that is in lower Michigan. I said, will they want to sell the minerals but not the water. Isn’t that inconsistent. She thinks no. The people at large want the minerals sold. I say, Big Bay people don’t want the minerals sold; are the wills of the people at large squashing the wills of the small community. She says, yes, she nods. Ind says, your own legislators votes for the sale of minerals. She is firm or tense in her statement to me. I fell the /a conflict between her and I. It is interesting how she asserts; the people will not sell their water at this time, but maybe in the future, yet they will sell their minerals. We talked a lot about protecting the environment; Env interrupted and stressed this point. Of course, I do agree, but I just was not talking about that. I was focusing on a given point, not changing the topic. Even, if the local people oppose, it makes not difference. I also said, this reason is why the DNR is unpopular here in the UP. #65. Env question weather suspending is really possible.. Eminent and substantial danger is his pint. Env points out several points that are worth changing. Trying to put teeth in this. #66. Steve just made a mistake of sorts” we don’t do anything in 60 days, maybe” a joke, few people laugh (late in day) #67. It sure appears to me, these people don’t know this concept of FA. People are in a daze here. Page 39 Even myself, I am imagining if Jean were here having studied with Envshe would have been of ungodly help. This makes me feel bad that Jean has not helped. #68. All this information is from part 111 which is another statute. Envasks that this is non-negotiable

#69. Env p39 line 21 etc. This sure looks like Ind doesn’t want to forfeited all mineral rights across the state. Who knows thought. Cannot tell. Ind says what about taxing him on it.

#69 The topic is about security not being the mine itself. Page 9. Env keeps saying, you cannot use a asset that you have to mine in order to acquire that asset. Meaning you cannot use the mine as collateral because if something goes wrong, then you have to continue mining in order to cover the collateral loss. He said this several times. One might ask one’s self why repeat your self. Why even say this at all because it is so stupid. I shake my head in disbelief. #70. Diversion of water. They don’t control the sale of minerals. Last day 4/29/05 #71. Performance standards verses design standards, but they are dual standards. You can have some of both. Many, Many, Many concepts and words. I do not understand the concepts but when I do, I find it fascinating. I don’t want to pretend to be knowledgeable on most of these topics. But ;as I patiently site here--- I wonder why I am sitting here and to what extent I could even comments. Presently they are talking about page 39 line 21-24, yet all of a sudden they are talking about topics I know. Minerals reserves are talked about: “financial security” as a whole, Ind says. The here I understand. I cannot help but wonder how others in the room perceive and understand matters, partly or in whole. An example the only person partaken (talking consistently) right now are Steve, Ind., Env, Ind, Env Discussion of rules verses part. So, 6 to 12 people follow this, there are 33 people here. So, why so few people relative to the whole which are talking, in detail, about issues Now Env jumps in, increasing input. #72. (This topic is on Corporate liability): others are listening but I know corporate liability is a huge topic but other just don’t understand. Financial guarantee: Env, suggest 5 specific persons get together then report back. This #73. suggests that I am correct: only 5 or so people understand this topic , enough in order to debate it. There should clearly be experts brought in to discuss this topic. #74. Env moves onto another topic. (this reflects incompletion) P39 l 27 # of days for notice – a time consideration. This topic has only about 6 to 10 people: but then another jumps in and another and another. Meeting financial criterion. People don’t know topic changes to something else. #75. Boy, this topic looks bad, it’s chasing the money. Bonds, trust, etc. It sounds like an Enron thing. To the contrary: it is fascinating and an opportunity to watch some of these people communicate. Suspend operation verses secession of the operation. #76. Now, someone who is quiet speaks up.

#77. Steve just suggested that I don’t understand, - again – few page 10. people understand him. Rate of return issue. #78, Env suggests to move on – and not Steve topic. He is not happy. #79. Now Env brings up a topic; the DEQ may limit its rights but it does not want to limit itself. It did this inadvertently or by mistake cause it is just Hal. Env brought this up and was overlooked by Hal. #80. Rule 308; final release, 10 people on this topic. Env is leading again in a superb manner. Env asks for a final review of the absolute whole project. #81. A though is, a company will know these rules and statue inside and out. Would that company know the look holes, etc. #82. Env had a question on “interested person” which was not answered by Hal. Cause he wanted to “move on”. #83 The people are quite sharp here this morning but clearly not complete… considering a new industry being formed. #84. Env is bring up a topic page 13 (e2) (excluded) which is debated about (again) yet here the experts (not here) should be present with all of us. Backfilling. #85. There is debate about subsidence – things are still not clear. Persons who must be present are: 15 #86. ISSUE: What is PERPETUAL CARE - Maintenance is perpetual care – the statute. Long term. Real good conversation Certain technology use perpetual care therefore they are eliminated. #87. Ind says, it comes back to site specifics. Env wants to move on. Env is awful.

#86. Facility; land use and deed restriction; perpetual care. This is real Good: and it is not being handles – maybe Skip.

#86. If a site were safe then OK for perpetual care. Mining area to become contaminated permanently. Listen to the tape. Side B the end and first of Side A. (For details and much better clarity one could listen to the State tapes, and here would be the case for their use.)

This is industry problem to do mining that does not cause perpetual care.

Part 4: mining g operation Ind likes this.

#87. How in the world will the common man eve understand this stuff

(best talker are EPA, Ind, 3 env.) page 11.

#88. Linda insisted an implied insulation of E group. “Is anything strict enough?”

#89. They don’t know what they are agreeing about. Other… #88. This is not a democracy – Hal says. The debate is raging but between different E groups… which is real good in my mind. #90. Ind says, the paper is stronger then anything else he’s ever seen – this try’s. Env does not like this. #91. Hal wants to shut of talks, more people agree Env who has said nothing for 3 days now spoke up with the answer. A short little 10 word statement asserting the authority of the DEQ. Later most complemented him. This show how even the quiet people may be listening and take part to some degree. That the quiet people did indeed produce something.

#92. Later: Why didn’t the DEQ bring experts when talking about financial assurance? They have them but where were they. Answer : it would be seen by this group how limited or uninformed the DEQ experts really is.