Ms. Lisa Fay Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources Environmental Review Unit 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 NorthMetSDEIS.dnr@state.mn.us
Re: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange
Dear Ms. Fay,
The Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed mine that would have a number of significant environmental and societal impacts. Because of the many significant impacts from the proposed project and flaws in the SDEIS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service should deny PolyMets state mining and Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit requests and the proposed land exchange.
The following are serious flaws in the project proposal and SDEIS analysis relating to water quality, cumulative impacts analysis, project alternatives analysis and threatened and endangered species impacts. ELPC also supports the comments of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, Conservation Minnesota, and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy that highlight these and other important issues in detail.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Forest Service should choose the No Action Alternative and deny the requested permits and land exchange. At the very least, the agencies must update the SDEIS with required analysis that was not included and correct other significant flaws identified in the comment process before the agencies make a decision on the proposed mine.
Water Quality. The SDEIS and mining plan do not reasonably assure that the mine will not result in significant, irreversible water pollution. The SDEIS and mining plan model mechanical or potentially other types of water treatment as being required for at least 200 years at the mine site and at least 500 years at the plant site to prevent sulfate and other water pollution to watersheds connected to Lake Superior. At ES-35. The SDEIS, in fact, concludes that [i]t is uncertain how long the project would require water treatment. At ES-11. No plan is presented 2
that reasonably assures that water treatment will be possible and effective for the stated hundreds of years at a minimum.
Because of long timeframes that remain unknown, there is similarly no meaningful demonstration that mine closure and reclamation will actually be possible. It is simply not reasonable to determine as the SDEIS does that there are no significant sulfate and mercury water quality impacts from the proposed mine when the proposed treatment is not demonstrated as effective, when the water treatment relies on models that are projecting up to 500 years into the future and when significant impacts are almost certain if the proposed treatment is not effective for hundreds of years.
The agencies should deny the project on these water quality impacts alone. It is unreasonable to approve a project that requires fully functioning water quality treatment for hundreds of years into the future to avoid serious harm to Lake Superior and the watersheds adjacent to the mine. Approval on these terms would constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action.
Cumulative Effects Assessment. The SDEIS Cumulative Effects assessment is incomplete because it fails to include an analysis of the cumulative impacts of regional mining affecting Lake Superior. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) require that cumulative effects analyses include other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects that, analyzed together, may have significant impacts. The SDEISs Cumulative Effects assessment includes only mining and similar projects in Northern Minnesota. At 6-15; Table 6-1. However, there are a number other current and reasonably foreseeable mines near Lake Superior in Wisconsin and Michigans Upper Peninsula. For example, large-scale existing and proposed mines include the Penokee Mine in Wisconsin, the Empire and Tilden Mines near Marquette, Michigan and the Eagle Mine in Michigan. These mines cumulative impacts on Lake Superior and the watersheds on which it depends must be analyzed before the agencies can determine that there are no significant cumulative effects to Lake Superior.
Alternatives. The SDEIS Alternatives analysis is too narrow. Both NEPA and MEPA require that the agencies consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action alternative and that this analysis is included in the SDEIS. However, the SDEIS considers only one alternative other than the No Action Alternative, and that alternative is just the same proposed mine, but with a smaller land exchange acreage. At ES-42 ES-43. Considering just one marginally different alternative is too narrow of an alternatives range to satisfy NEPA and MEPA. The SDEIS should consider additional reasonable proposed alternatives, such as an alternative analyzing an underground mining proposal and an alternative requiring back-filling the mining pits with waste-rock after closure.
Endangered and At-Risk Species Impacts. The PolyMet mine would cause serious harm to the Endangered Canada lynx and the SDEIS fails to analyze impacts to Minnesotas moose population. The PolyMet mine plan would degrade 1,450 acres of habitat designated as Critical Habitat for the Canada lynx under the Endangered Species Act. SDEIS at 5-365. The mine and its related activities would also further increase the fragmentation of remaining Canada 3
lynx habitat. However, the SDEIS fails to include alternatives that would mitigate impacts, such as alternatives minimizing new roads and traffic increases in Canada lynx habitat.
Moreover, the SDEIS does not address impacts to Minnesotas moose population. Moose were added to Minnesotas list of Species of Special Concern in 2013 because of the populations recent, swift decline a 50% decrease in population since 2005. Yet, the SDEIS moose analysis does not meaningfully address how PolyMets proposal will impact moose or moose habitat. The MDNR should insist on a thorough, specific analysis for this iconic Minnesota species before it issues any mining permits.
For the foregoing reasons, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Forest Service should find that the impacts and risks to the environment and society from PolyMets proposed mine are too great to approve the project. The agencies should choose the No Action Alternative and deny the requested permits and land exchange. At a bare minimum, the agencies must require that the SDEIS is updated to include legally-required analysis that was not included in this SDEIS and correct the other significant flaws identified through the comment process before the agencies make a decision on the proposed mine.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
/s/ Allen Gleckner
Allen Gleckner Staff Attorney Environmental Law & Policy Center 2356 University Avenue West Suite 403 St. Paul, MN 55114