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:

April 19, 5-6:30 p.m.
Room 331, William Mitchell College of Law
St. Paul, MN

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

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

2010 Annual Event – Saturday, March 20

You are cordially invited to the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness 2010 Annual Event.

When:
Saturday, March 20, 2010
3–6 p.m.

Where:
The Metropolitan Ballroom & Clubroom
5418 Wayzata Boulevard
Golden Valley, MN 55416

Cost:
$35 per person or $105 for a table of 5 or $315 for a table of 10

Please R.S.V.P. by March 12, 2010 to 612-332-9630 or sacha@friends-bwca.org

Agenda
3:00 p.m.
Hors d’ourves

4:15 p.m.
State of the Wilderness Report:
Jim Sanders, Forest Supervisor, Superior National Forest

State of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness
Paul Danicic, Executive Director

5:00 p.m.
Annual Conservation Award winners presentation
Bob and Pat Tammen

5:15 p.m.
Keynote speaker, Doug Woods,
Author of Paddle Whispers and Old Turtle

Friends recommend “No Action” alternative on PolyMet Draft EIS

MINNEAPOLIS, MN – The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness today submitted its comments to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers on the PolyMet NorthMet mining project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

As the result of numerous serious flaws in the environmental review process and the project proposal, the Friends recommends the “No Action” alternative until significant problems have been addressed.

“PolyMet says they want to do this the environmentally-responsible way,” said Paul Danicic, executive director of the Friends. “But the Draft EIS is full of unsupported assumptions, omissions of data, and over-reliance on modeling. The fact is that this mine as proposed will inevitably, unavoidably, pollute the waters of northeastern Minnesota.”

To help analyze the document, the Friends retained four noted scientists with decades of combined experience in fields such as mine engineering, geohydrology, wetlands, aquatic ecology, and other relevant areas. Significant flaws in the DEIS include, but are not limited to:

• Lack of financial assurance – Delaying such an important component until the permitting stage is a serious omission, making it impossible to fully assess the project’s potential environmental impacts, and putting Minnesota’s taxpayers and natural resources at risk. (Page 3)
• Inadequate data collection and disclosure – The DEIS is overly dependent on modeling when real-world data could have been easily obtained and would have provided far more useful and predictive information. (Page 9)
• Long-term water contamination from waste rock – The DEIS predicts that water leaching from waste rock piles will exceed Minnesota’s water quality standards for multiple metals and compounds for up to 2,000 years. (Page 16)
• Contaminated overflow from mine pit – Approximately 45 years after mine closure, the DEIS predicts that the mine’s West Pit will overflow and spill into the Partridge River. Water from the pit is expected to exceed water quality standards including likely mercury contamination, and pollution of the river will violate the Clean Water Act. (Page 16-17)
• Inaccurate wetland characterization – By mischaracterizing many wetlands as isolated from groundwater, rather than accurately as “fens” which have higher connectivity with groundwater, the DEIS fails to acknowledge the potential for these wetlands to spread contamination from the tailings basin and waste rock piles and to increase the production of methylmercury. (Pages 18-19)
• Overreliance on wetlands for water treatment – Despite acknowledging the wildly variable success of using wetlands for water treatment, the DEIS proposes to use wetlands as a primary tool for water treatment and relies heavily on the assumption that it will work. (Page 21)
• Unsafe tailings basins – The DEIS acknowledges that the tailings basins will have a “low margin of safety” because the underlying material—fine tailings from the LTV taconite mine—is unstable and poorly-constructed. Failure of the tailings basin would result in the release of a catastrophic amount of toxic mine waste. (Pages 25-26)
• Sulfate contamination and mercury methylation – High levels of sulfates discharged into surface and groundwater will increase the methylation of mercury, a biological process which can result in the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and is toxic to wildlife and humans. Increased sulfate levels will also have negative impacts on wild rice beds in lakes and rivers downstream from the mine, seriously harming an important cultural resource of Ojibwa Band members in the region. (Pages 30-35)

“The flaws in this document are very real and very serious,” said Betsy Daub, policy director of the Friends. “Left unaddressed, these problems would mean enormous financial, environmental and health risks for the people of our state.”

In addition to describing the document’s flaws and the threats it poses to the region’s lakes, rivers, streams and groundwater, the Friends also provided substantive recommendations wherever possible, offering proactive solutions and measurable ways to improve the environmental review and the project. Recommendations include:

• Inclusion of financial assurance calculations in the EIS, accounting for costs of long-term water treatment. In his report, Dr. Chambers provided a rough calculation of $100 million for mine clean-up, closure and long-term water treatment.
• Basing the reclamation plan on a plan provided from another mine that includes details adequate to ensure full clean-up before the company is released from its permit conditions.
• Analysis of a centerline design for the tailings basin to increase stability.
• Additional data collection techniques to better understand groundwater flows, wetland types and behaviors, and other important information to inform predictions.

More than 750 individuals had submitted comments to the Minnesota DNR on the DEIS by Wednesday morning via the Friends’ sulfide mining website at www.preciouswaters.org. Commenters frequently echoed the above concerns, as well as expressing great concern over the possibility that this type of mining can even be done in the watery ecosystems of northeastern Minnesota without serious, long-term pollution.

“It is of critical importance that the environmental review process for PolyMet be done right,” said Danicic. “This is the first of several such mines that could open up in Minnesota, and precedents for what levels of risk are acceptable, and unacceptable, will be set during this process. PolyMet has a lot of work to do to convince the Minnesota public that they can mine this ore and protect our natural resources at the same time.”

Comments:

• Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness PolyMet NorthMet DEIS comments – PDF
• Press release (PDF)

###

The Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness works to protect the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness through advocacy and education. Founded in 1976 to help pass the legislation that permanently designated the Boundary Waters as federal Wilderness, the organization’s mission is to protect, preserve and restore the wilderness character of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the Quetico-Superior ecosystem. Online at www.friends-bwca.org.

Caucus for clean water

At tonight’s precinct caucuses in Minnesota, concerned citizens can introduce a resolution about sulfide mining. It is a great way to start a conversation about the subject with your neighbors, as well as elevate the issue in the statewide parties.

To make it as easy as possible, we’ve put together resource kits for either party. Each file includes:

1. A caucus guide which explains how caucuses work and how to introduce a resolution
2. A short sample speech you can give to introduce the resolution
3. The resolution itself, on each party’s standard form
4. A brief frequently asked questions document which addresses common questions

Here are the kits, in PDF form:

• Democrat (DFL)
• Republican

Good luck!

“Facts” versus the truth in Kent Kaiser commentary

In response to Friends’ policy director Betsy Daub’s recent column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune about sulfide mining, the film “Avatar,” and the decisions Minnesotans must make, Kent Kaiser of the Center for the American Experiment, a conservative think-tank, published a counterpoint. The crux of his article is based on several “facts” he presents. Because many of those “facts” are anything but, we felt it would be useful to respond.

Below is a point-by-point response, and below that is an e-mail that Betsy has shared that she wrote back to an individual who contacted her for her side of the story after reading Kaiser’s article.

“Facts” vs. Truth

“Fact: PolyMet’s proposed mine — near Hoyt Lakes — is in a completely different watershed than the BWCA, and nowhere near “Hwy. 1, the scenic entryway into Ely and the wilderness beyond,” as Daub claims. Daub suggests that the BWCA could be affected, and this is completely false.”

Daub did NOT claim that the mine was in the BWCAW watershed. She clearly stated that, after PolyMet, all serious mining interest is located in the BWCAW watershed and thus the PolyMet environmental review process is important to watch and ensure it is done right.

“Fact: If any other mining company ever wanted to begin operation anywhere else up north, it would have to go through its own environmental review process. Daub suggests that permitting PolyMet to mine would automatically lead to mining next to the BWCA, which is false.”

“Suggest” is such a vague word. What Daub stated was that what happens with PolyMet will indeed be precedent-setting. See this statement from Duluth Metals, which last week announced a $227 million deal with a Chilean firm to advance its mine in the BWCAW watershed:

“During a conference call with investors, Duluth Metals leaders were quizzed over the company’s ability to pass Minnesota’s permitting maze. The answer was simple: follow PolyMet.

“Now in the final stages of the environmental impact statement (EIS) process, PolyMet has had the misfortune of being the first in line. After countless delays and $20 million spent on getting the EIS done, PolyMet has laid down a map for how to permit a copper-nickel mine in Minnesota.” Ely Echo, 1/16/2010

“Fact: PolyMet’s operation in Minnesota will be so environmentally and technologically cutting-edge that it will be a model for the world — far from the outdated gloom-and-doom image painted by Friends of the Boundary Waters. The state and federal governments’ environmental requirements for this mine will be unprecedented. In fact, this mine might even have a positive effect on the global environment. Indeed, the entire human race would benefit from PolyMet’s operation being established instead of a mine in some other, less environmentally conscientious country.”

Wow, the entire human race would benefit. And environmentalists are the ones that get accused of hyperbole. Two points:

1. Opening the PolyMet mine does not mean that another mine in another country will close. Mining companies will always seek to mine metals wherever they are found. They will do so as cheaply as possible to maximize their profits and will be subject to whatever laws apply where they wish to mine.
2. The PolyMet project is full of holes and serious flaws. Until mining boosters can point to specifics in the project’s Draft EIS that say otherwise, rhetoric about how cutting edge and environmentally safe it will be is nothing but words. The DEIS fails to discuss financial assurance–a glaring omission that puts our tax dollars at risk and which a conservative like Kaiser should be able to appreciate–, it predicts water pollution from waste rock piles for up to 2,000 years, it states that the tailings basin will have a “low margin of safety.” That is just the beginning.

“Fact: PolyMet will provide a domestic supply of metals that Americans use every day — nickel, copper, gold, platinum and palladium — in cell phones, computers, catalytic converters, electric cars, wind turbines and medical devices. The global environmental and domestic economic impact of producing these critical metals here, and having to import less from elsewhere, will be very positive.”

PolyMet’s metals will be sold on the global commodities market, to the highest bidder. The company has entered into a marketing agreement with Swiss firm Glencore AG and it is disingenuous to claim that this will reduce our import or transportation of metals.

“Fact: PolyMet’s operation will create 400 well-paying jobs directly, and there will be hundreds of spinoff jobs. This will add an estimated $240 million to the local economy and to the state’s tax base. The University of Minnesota Duluth has produced excellent analyses.”

The University of Minnesota-Duluth study was paid for by PolyMet, Mining Minnesota and other mining companies and it paints a predictably rosy picture for the project’s economic impacts. Not considered are the negative impacts of such a mine on the region, including the contamination of one Minnesota’s greatest resources: clean water.

“Fact: Our state’s leading policymakers, including U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, U.S. Rep. James Oberstar and Gov. Tim Pawlenty support this new generation of mining in Minnesota.”

That is the last “fact” that Kaiser offers, and the only one that is unequivocal. Unfortunately, many of our state’s elected officials have indeed offered their support for PolyMet but one must wonder if they or even their staffs have actually read the Draft EIS or if they are voicing support for the potential jobs, and choosing to just ignore the serious negative impacts on public health, clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, and the region’s sustainable economy.

Civil Dialogue

An individual that read Kaiser’s piece contacted Betsy to ask her what she thought of Kaiser’s arguments. Her response is worth reading:

Thank you for contacting me and for your interest in this issue.  I do not agree with Mr. Kaiser’s characterization of my points or how he characterizes the mining issue in general.  I do agree with him on a few points – though (he might be surprised by that!): that we all use the metals that are sought and that this mine would extract; and that northern MN is in particular need of jobs.  But much of the rest of his article is filled with inaccuracies.  My article talked about safeguarding sustainable economies.  He talks of providing jobs – but he does not talk about jobs mining (and the scale of mining proposed) would jeopardize.  The MN Office of Tourism has found that tourism and recreation are a 1.6 billion dollar industry for northeastern MN.  The Superior National Forest brings in over $200 million to the region in recreation and tourism alone – and $30 million of that is from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  This is not small potatoes.  Mining has played an important part of Minnesota’s economy – but it does no longer (about 1% of the state’s income) – and even in the counties where mining has dominated, it now is about 4 or 5% of the economic base.  I don’t say that to put down miners or the industry in terms of how important these jobs are to the communities that have mining.  But, some communities have found more sustainable ways to support themselves – and for many tourism and recreation play an important part of that.  Despite Mr. Kaiser’s points – a great many northern MN citizens are very, very concerned about what wide-spread mining operations may do to their way of life, their businesses, their communities.  This is not about Twin Cities folks demanding things of the north (although – I might point out that the areas in question are all public land – and belong to both the people up north and everyone else too!).

We all use the metals – yes.  I wish I had easy answers for solving our metal demands – but I will not pretend that I do.  But – just to correct the record – the metals that would be mined will be sold on the international market – mostly to feed China’s growth.  Not a domestic source of metals, as Mr. Kaiser notes.

Hope this helps clarify things some.  I do not believe it needs to be a jobs vs environment issue.  I very much think sustainable jobs should be protected and promoted – and that the environment benefits when we do.

All the best,
Betsy