“Damage deposit” bill for sulfide mines withdrawn

Sen. Jim Carlson

Sen. Carlson expressed both excitement about the possibility of new jobs from mining and grave concerns about the industry’s track record elsewhere in the country, which includes toxic water pollution, abandoned mines, and using bankruptcy to get out of its financial and environmental obligations.

“It is disappointing that this legislation will not proceed at this time,” said Paul Danicic, executive director of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. “This was a chance for our legislators to adopt some practical policies to ensure that, if this mining is going to be done in Minnesota, it is done as safely as possible and our clean water and our wallets are protected.”

Productive hearings

Despite the bill’s withdrawal, the hearings were a positive step toward addressing the risks of sulfide mining in Minnesota. After more than 10 hours of testimony about the issue during a series of three hearings this week, serious concerns about the possible negative impacts were finally heard by elected officials.

Legislators were particularly interested in the recent letter sent by the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers about the PolyMet Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The EPA gave the PolyMet environmental review its lowest possible rating, which has been given out to only 0.3 percent of all EISes the agency has reviewed since 1987. The agency also said that the mine project cannot proceed as currently proposed.

Focus on EPA criticism

The EPA’s criticisms of the environmental review document and the mine proposal came up frequently during this week’s hearings. Department of Natural Resources staff that testified at the hearing stated they are currently working on setting up a meeting with the EPA to discuss the agency’s concerns, which include the lack of financial assurance discussion in the environmental impact statement, inadequate data, and unacceptable water pollution from the proposed mine.

Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, the chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which heard the testimony, closed the hearing by stating his reservations about the PolyMet project, “My confidence has been shaken,” he said, adding that many of the concerns raised “are things that effect our children, our wildlife, even our jobs and they are not being looked at to the highest standard.”

Mining hearings scheduled at State Capitol

The Minnesota Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee has scheduled a series of three hearings next week regarding the PolyMet mine proposal, the past and future of sulfide mining exploration and regulation in the state, and a bill that would strengthen the state’s “damage deposit” laws.

The hearings will feature testimony from government agencies, mining industry proponents, scientists, citizen advocates, and experts in the field.

It is critically important that people who care about protecting our clean water from toxic pollution from proposed mines show up at the hearings to show support to the legislators who will make important decisions about the issue in the near future.

Details:

Monday, March 8

12:30 p.m. – Room 107, Minnesota State Capitol

• History of mining regulation and environmental review
• PolyMet presentation on NorthMet Project

6 p.m. – Room 15, Minnesota State Capitol

• PolyMet Draft EIS comments

Wednesday, March 10

6 p.m. – Room 107, Minnesota State Capitol

• Financial assurance (“damage deposit”) legislation

More details are coming soon, please sign up for our sulfide mining e-mail updates to receive an email later this week with additional information about attending these important hearings and being a visible, vocal supporter of Minnesota’s precious waters.

EPA criticizes PolyMet proposal

UPDATE 3/5/2010 – PolyMet has issued a statement that says the EPA’s criticism was based only on the proposed action in the Draft EIS, not the alternatives:

“The EPA’s rating of the draft EIS as unsatisfactory appears to have been based on the ‘proposed project’ without  consideration of alternatives or mitigations discussed in the document.”

This is false. In page two of the EPA’s letter, the agency states:

“This rating applies to the Proposed Action, the Mine Site Alternative and the Tailings Basin Alternative.”

In its comment letter to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the two lead government agencies on the environmental review), the EPA gave the DEIS the lowest rating possible.

In its comments, the EPA stated the all waste rock at the mine site would be acid generating, “and acidic water moving through the waste rock and tailings will mobilize metal and sulfates, leaching them into groundwater and surface water. The DEIS projects that water quality standards will be exceeded for sulfates and other contaminants…”

• Read the comments letter here for more details about the agencies concerns with the project.
• Minnesota Public Radio story about the criticisms.

Sigurd Olson Lecture Series: A Political History of Two Landscapes

The 2010 Sigurd Olson Lecture Series will feature long-time wilderness advocate and attorney Brian O’Neill discussing Yellowstone National Park and The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the history and evolution of wilderness law.

The creation of Yellowstone as a park and the reservation from settlement of lands and water that now form the Boundary Waters began the American experiment in the preservation of wild places and wild animals. Both landscapes have been surrounded by controversy since their inception. Today Yellowstone and the BWCA face further challenges, some of which will alter their very natures. Many of these challenges will also affect generally the continued vitality of our national park and wilderness systems.

Brian O’Neill has been involved in the Boundary Waters and Yellowstone fights for more than 30 years. He has litigated over 50 cases on behalf of the environmental community ranging from the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone, to the constitutionality of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Act. He has handled cases dealing with wolves, bears, eagles, and fish. In 1994, Brian was the chief trial lawyer for fisherman and natives in the civil trial resulting from the Exxon Valdez disaster. He has argued in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dates and locations:

University of Minnesota, St. Paul campus
203 Green Hall
Febuary 22 – 2:30p.m.

U of Minn. Law School
Walter Mondale Hall
Room 50
April 20 – 12:15 p.m.

Vermilion Community College Theater
Ely, MN
April 21 – 7 p.m.