by Elanne Palcich – Chisholm, Minnesota
Those of us citizens who actually took it upon ourselves to review the 1800 plus pages of the Polymet DEIS (draft environmental impact statement) deserve a gold medal—recycled, of course. The 90 day comment period took place between November 2 and February 3. Does anyone notice that Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the New Year came during this timeframe?
Nonetheless, individual citizens submitted over 1,000 pages of substantive comments on the DEIS. These are comments that relate directly to the chapters and pages of the documents. Expert opinions were also submitted, creating a volume of concerns regarding the DEIS.
A brief synopsis follows:
· The LTV Steel Mining Company tailings basin purchased by PolyMet is already leaching contaminants into the watershed.
· The LTV tailings basin is unstable, due to load and composition of tailings’ slimes. PolyMet tailings would be added to an already unstable impoundment.
· The DEIS does not adequately consider cumulative impacts of PolyMet, Mesabi Nugget, and other mining expansion and proposed mining within the watershed.
· PolyMet’s proposed operations would add to mercury and sulfate loads in the St. Louis River watershed, affecting both fish and wild rice.
· The DEIS does not address the cumulative impacts of more than twenty metals that would be released into the watershed. Chemical contaminants from the flotation process and hydromet are not addressed.
· Design of 320 foot high waste rock piles are not adequate for stability. Acid mine drainage potential is not adequately addressed.
· Water hydrology and geotechnical testing was based upon computer modeling rather than more accurate but also more expensive on-the-ground testing.
· The DEIS contains language such as monitoring, mitigation, and treatment, but no plans or details. For instance, who would monitor and when? If monitoring showed that contaminants were exceeding drinking water standards, what would mitigation or treatment consist of?
· The DEIS does not adequately or fully address impacts on wildlife, including cumulative impacts and loss of wildlife corridors.
· Air quality impacts disregarded cumulative effects.
· Asbestiform fiber issues are not addressed regarding airborne concerns.
· Wetland mitigation plans do not comply with the Wetland Conservation Act.
· Closure plans and length of water treatment, perhaps for centuries, are left open to future determination.
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has confirmed our findings and conclusions in its comments. The EPA has rated the PolyMet DEIS as environmentally unsatisfactory (EU), based upon the potential to exceed water quality standards and create a Superfund site. The EPA analysis also states that hydrogeological profiles are inadequate and the DEIS provides incomplete and inadequate compensation for loss of wetlands and their function. Steven Colvin of the DNR took a defensive stance on the EPA report, claiming that these details would be part of the permitting process, but not necessarily the DEIS. However, if Mr. Colvin’s statement is true, then the public is being denied access to information for public review.
PolyMet faces two additional major hurdles. One is that the Center for Biological Diversity, the Save Lake Superior Association, and the Indigenous Environmental Network have filed intent to take legal action against Cliffs Erie for clean-up of the LTV tailings basin as required by the Clean Water Act. Due to the instability of the tailings basin, along with the ongoing water contamination, PolyMet will be forced to produce a different plan for its projected huge amount of tailings. (Since PolyMet’s ore body contains less than 1% mineralization, the mining would produce 99% waste rock.)
PolyMet’s second major hurdle involves the location of its proposed open pits. Those pits would lie within what is now Superior National Forest. According to the Weeks Act of 1911, and litigation which has followed through the years, strip mining is banned on national forest land which was purchased (under the Weeks Act) for watershed protection. The Forest Service agency was thus remiss in not requiring PolyMet to limit its operations to underground mining. The Forest Service also neglected to conduct an EIS on the value of those public lands as would be required under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) in order for any land exchange to take place. In order to cover up for these failures, the Forest Service is now requesting that Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Representative Oberstar introduce a highly unethical bill that would require the sale of USFS land to PolyMet as a special favor.
Going for the gold is a popular thing this year. Athletes are competing for it. Mining companies are counting on the projected economic growth of China to attract demand for all metals. Workers are looking for mining jobs to bring them gold, at least for some and at least in the short term. But some of us are going for Olympic gold in a different way. We are digging through mountains of documents, and climbing our way through mounds of paperwork and research to give us a view from the peak. That view says that mining of less than 1% ores in Minnesota’s Arrowhead Region is not sustainable. That view says that leaving behind a legacy of water contamination, tailings basins, open pits, and waste rock piles is not the prize we are looking for. The Arrowhead Region holds its own priceless riches: clean air, clean water, and biodiversity as the gold standards of the future.
