More environmental review for PolyMet mine proposal

The draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the PolyMet sulfide mine proposal in northeastern Minnesota needs more work before moving forward, the responsible government agencies recently announced.

Responding to EPA, Friends, citizens

Many of the areas that are expected to be addressed are concerns raised in February by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a letter at that time, the EPA ranked the project’s draft EIS as unacceptable and inadequate and said the project should not move forward as proposed.

The EPA criticisms closely aligned with extensive comments submitted by the Friends and other groups. The agency found that the mine’s pollution and environmental threats would be severe and unacceptable and it said that not enough data had been gathered and analysis performed to even fully understand what the impacts would be.

In April and May, the Friends led a petition campaign calling on the agencies to heed the EPA advice and do more work on the environmental review before moving any further ahead. More than 2,000 signatures were sent to government officials calling for adequate environmental review.

Will include land exchange

One significant addition to the environmental review will be a proposed land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service. The proposed PolyMet mine site is on public land managed by the Superior National Forest. In order to start mining, PolyMet needs to acquire the land.

In 2008, Rep. James Oberstar and Sens. Klobuchar and Coleman introduced legislation seeking to circumvent usual processes and sell the 6,700 acres of public land outright. The Friends opposed the sale and it seems to have been abandoned. The company is now pursuing a land exchange. Because the entire mine proposal is based on the assumption PolyMet will acquire the land, review of such an exchange is essential to any environmental review.

The Forest Service has also increased its involvement in the review process, signing on as a co-lead agency with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources. The EPA is also being brought in as a cooperating agency.

“Damage deposit” information

Other work includes developing project alternatives that would cause less environmental degradation and including more information about financial assurance. It is unclear if the financial assurance will meet standards in proposed legislation at the Minnesota state capitol this spring.

The EPA criticisms of the mine proposal and the environmental review were widely-discussed at four committee hearings in the Minnesota legislature in March. A bill that sought to strengthen “damage deposit” rules did not move out of committee; among its provisions, the legislation would have required financial assurance to be included in draft EISs.

However, the level of detail that will provided about financial assurance is still unclear. A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers told the Pioneer Press, “We will talk about different mechanisms. There may be a range of dollar amounts that will be provided, but that is yet to be fully fleshed out.”

Devil in the details

The decision to create the supplement draft EIS is a positive step, but the review process still demands close attention by citizens, conservation organizations and policy-makers. Because of the severity of the faults in the draft EIS, a significant amount of work needs to be done, including field work gathering additional data.

The public will have additional opportunities to be involved, including a comment period and at least one public meeting.