Please attend this important hearing to show your support. Get there early, at least an hour, if you want to get into the room, but there should be a lively crowd watching the proceedings in overflow spaces that will be provided.

Wear a blue shirt and look for folks handing out “Protect Clean Water” stickers!

Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
5 p.m.
Room 15 Capitol

The rating highlights the extraordinary threats represented by the mine to clean water. The agency does not assign such ratings very often. In the past 23 years, the EPA has reviewed 11,834 EISes and gave the rating it gave to PolyMet to only 41, or 0.3 percent. In the upper Midwest region, the agency gave the rating to just 0.2 percent of the 844 EISes it reviewed.

Yesterday, PolyMet released a statement seeking to control the damage the EPA’s rating has done to its credibility. Unfortunately, the company included a statement in their press release that is blatantly false:

“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.”

There is no way to excuse such a misleading statement as PolyMet has made. Rather than offering specific details that respond to the EPA’s criticisms, the company has chosen only to muddy the waters.

The hearings will address the scope of mining exploration in the state, the history of how existing regulations were created, the PolyMet project, and a bill that would strengthen laws requiring a “damage deposit” from mining companies.

Please attend the meetings to show visible, vocal support for clean water. Wear a blue shirt to be part of this demonstration of citizen concern. More details coming soon!

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

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

• Financial assurance (“damage deposit”) legislation

The legislation would make common sense, necessary changes to close loopholes and protect our water, fish and wildlife, and our tax dollars. Take action immediately to support the financial assurance regulations. Here’s everything you need:

1. Enter your address and find out who represents you here: http://www.gis.leg.mn/mapserver/districts/
2. Call or e-mail your representative and senator and ask them to support:
   • House bill 2560 – authored by Rep. Alice Hausman
   • Senate bill 2349 – authored by Sen. Jim Carlson

It will only take you a minute or two and could make the difference between this bill even getting a committee hearing or being beaten back by powerful mining interests. Please contact your legislators today!

What exactly does the bill do? Here are the highlights:

1. Requires financial assurance to be discussed in the environmental review
2. Protects us from corporate shell games and hold companies who profit from mines responsible for clean-up
3. Improve government transparency when setting and adjusting financial assurance
4. Mandates that long-term water treatment be covered in calculations
5. Requires the DNR to consult with financial experts in other agencies

Read the bill itself if you’re interested in the rest of the details. Please, contact your legislators right now.

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. More information about the experts, their credentials and their reports are available at the bottom of this announcement.

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.

Duluth expects development activities at Nokomis to proceed on an accelerated basis, and anticipates pre-feasibility and bankable feasibility studies to be completed within 36 months.

While the mine is expected to be underground, as opposed to the PolyMet strip mine proposal, it also differs because it would be located much closer to and in the watershed of the  BWCAW where the South Kawishiwi flows into Birch Lake. The river ultimately flows out of Birch Lake, through the White Iron Chain of Lakes, and back into the BWCAW.

The arrival of a multinational mining corporation in northeastern Minnesota is being hailed as a victory for Duluth Metals, but environmental concerns should also deserve a fair hearing by the public, decision-makers and the media. Even mining industry spokesperson Frank Ongaro admitted in a Minnesota Public Radio story that Antofagasta represents an industry that has for a long time operated recklessly:

“There’s a perfect example of a company who’s currently mining copper the old way, strongly interested in investing in mining and processing copper the more, new, modern, environmentally responsible way,” Ongaro said.

While Ongaro claims that this is a sign Antofagasta wants to do things the right way for a change, there is no evidence of that except the sort of “trust us” arguments the industry has long used to silence opposition.

Make no mistake, interest in opening up sulfide mines in the BWCAW watershed is very intense and the PolyMet environmental review process which is currently underway will be extremely influential in determining standards and procedures for future projects, streamlining the permitting of subsequent mines. An editorial in the Ely Echo states:

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.

It is all the more important to speak up about PolyMet today–the public comment period on the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement closes on Feb. 3. Submit your comments using our handy online tool right now!

Chuck Laszewski, communications director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the fact that the DNR’s new lease sale might expand mining exploration in Minnesota should make policy makers think about enacting laws that will ensure the state’s lakes and rivers are protected if a company proceeds with non-ferrous mining.

“We’re not talking about just St. Louis County anymore,” he said. “People who never thought they would see a mine in their county could now see a mine in their county, and they better pay attention to that.”

The scope of the interest is worrisome. Minnesota could see huge tracts of land in the Arrowhead (and beyond, including in areas in Aitkin County) developed for new copper-nickel mines. All of this activity would occur in sulfide ore bodies capable of producing acid mine drainage and other toxic pollution.

The location of some of the most recent activity is particularly concerning to those who enjoy fishing, swimming and other activities on some popular recreation lakes near Duluth, including Island and Grand Lakes. Save Lake Superior Association has posted some maps showing where leases are being offered near those lakes.

(Maps of the mineral leases near Island and Grand Lakes–click to view full-size. Courtesy Save Lake Superior Association.)

A mineral lease auction held by the DNR last year included significant lands around Ely. At the time, many property-owners and Realtors became very concerned because many of the leases were for mineral rights underneath private lands. Land-owners suddenly realized that a mining company could control the mineral rights underneath their property and there would be nothing they could do to prevent them from starting up a mine. The issue received considerable attention in the press at the time:

The Ely Echo ran an editorial last January:

Local realtor Charlie Chernak said there is reason for concern. “If you’ve got a $300,000 house sitting on a 40 (acre plot) and a company gets a minerals lease for that 40, I can tell you your house isn’t worth $300,000 anymore. I’m afraid this sale can have a harmful affect on a real estate market that’s already on its knees here.”

Chernak, who has been involved in economic development efforts in Ely, said the issue isn’t about mining.

“I’m not against mining but these mineral leases shouldn’t be on private ownership. The DNR says the odds of them drilling are slim and none but these are 50-year leases. My concern is it’s not the norm to have the minerals leased to a mining company,” said Chernak.

The Ely Timberjay also ran an article on the issue:

The state can offer mineral leases on those lands because the state of Minnesota allows what is known as “severed mineral rights,” which means the owner of the surface does not necessarily have rights to the minerals below. The state of Minnesota holds the rights to explore or mine for minerals across millions of acres of northeastern Minnesota, including much of the privately-held property in the region, and it typically exercises those rights through leases to mining companies. Under those leases, which can run up to 50 years, mining companies have a right to explore for, or mine, minerals on the lands covered by the lease, regardless of who owns the surface rights.

Learn more:

• View maps of all the lease sites at the DNR’s website

You can send your own letter to letters@duluthnews.com. Check out our letter-to-the-editor page for more tips and information about speaking up about this issue.

***

I am sure if Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., were well-informed of the environmental risks posed by PolyMet, he would not have announced his support for PolyMet (“Region’s lawmakers support PolyMet mine,” Dec. 11).

Franken needs to reconsider his position. Such a short-term employment gain at the risk of long-term deterioration of Minnesota’s total tourism industry could not have been understood by him when he made his position.

Mimi Gingold
Cincinnati and Ely

***

Evening news coverage of the proposed PolyMet mine was reminiscent of seven years ago when we were thrust, by a propaganda machine, into an unnecessary war. Dissenters were minimized or ignored outright by television news media whose responsibility it was to fully inform.

The PolyMet process has yet to be adequately explained by local television news outlets, except to say it is a new way of mining nonferrous metals that minimizes the enormous possible risks. After regularly viewing local evening news, I am no better informed regarding what the PolyMet process is, how the PolyMet process works, where it has previously been done successfully and what safeguards will be taken to ensure the health of the workers and environment. I do not know if the environmentalists have legitimate concerns, but it is very suspicious when one side of a controversy is so effectively dismissed. If this is a viable venture, there should be no problem in presenting an honest debate with scientists of equal stature, equal expertise and equal time.

These potential jobs, which could support hundreds of families for decades, are very important. Given the history of this industry, the people who will be laboring long days to make this mine profitable deserve, at the very least, a full and honest debate about the possible negative effects on their health and environment. This is the necessary function of television news.

The way this has played out on TV makes me wonder whether we are being sold a lemon that looks like gold but comes back to cause our children calamity. We don’t know. We need facts, not propaganda, from either side. It concerns me.

Thomas H. Glick
Two Harbors

***

Are the waters of Northeastern Minnesota less precious than those of Wisconsin?

Wisconsin will not allow sulfide ore mining until it can be proven that it can be done without harming the environment. No mining company has done that.

The waters of Northeastern Minnesota could be a testing ground for PolyMet’s unproven methods. The damage to our environment and the taxpayers’ cost for cleanup could last decades longer than the jobs.

Mary Thompson
Duluth

***

I’m a former guide and lifetime tourist in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, though I now live out of state. I care a lot about the environment and as a chemical engineer I know more than I really want to about what can go wrong and how hard or impossible man-made problems are to fix. So I’m asking the News Tribune to please reconsider its premature support for the PolyMet proposal (Our View: Minnesota can embrace PolyMet and copper mining,” Dec. 20).

Howard Myers
Pompton Plains, N.J.

Sportsmen’s coalition supports holding PolyMet fully accountable for watershed and waterways pollution

2,000 years of contamination for 20 years of copper mining

DULUTH—An ad hoc coalition of hunting and angling groups formally requests that legislation be passed by state lawmakers holding Canadian mining company PolyMet fully accountable for any and all costs associated with remediation and cleanup of its proposed copper-nickel mining operations near Hoyt Lakes, Minn. If this can’t be accomplished—thereby protecting taxpayers from a cleanup tab that could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars—no copper-nickel mining should be allowed.

The coalition of groups, which includes the Minnesota Division of the Izaak Walton League of America and the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, consists of sportsmen and women and others who understand the priceless value of clean watersheds and crystal clear lakes, streams, and rivers that supply Minnesotans with clean drinking water and unparalleled outdoor recreation opportunities.

And we have serious concerns about the seemingly reckless rush of some northern Minnesota legislators and others to approve PolyMet’s proposed mining operation on the former LTV Steel Mining Co.’s taconite plant near Hoyt Lakes.[1] Especially considering that these same lawmakers stymied attempts to pass common sense legislation ensuring that taxpayers won’t be saddled with decades of remediation and toxic waste cleanup costs after PolyMet officials pack their bags and head back to Canada.

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 40 percent of western headwater streams are polluted by abandoned mines, which poison rivers, creeks, and watersheds with sulfuric acid and heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and arsenic. High-end estimates of the number of abandoned mines range up to half-a-million. The projected cost to clean them up could be as high as $70 billion.[2]

Hardrock mining imperils watersheds and fish habitat because mineral ores are infused with sulfides. When mining puts the ore into contact with water, the result is acid runoff that pollutes lakes, rivers and streams, oftentimes killing all aquatic life.[3] For example, in South Dakota the Dakota Mining Corp. extracted nearly $70 million worth of precious metals from public lands, then went broke in 1998, abandoned the mine, and left behind a 100 million gallon pond of acid and toxic heavy metals. The cleanup cost is estimated at $40 million—more than seven times higher than the cleanup bond the company posted, shifting the costs onto taxpayers.[4]

At Summitville, a mine in Colorado, a bankrupt Canadian company has left the nation’s most costly mine cleanup. It will take 100 years and cost $235 million to clean up the release of cyanide and acid mine drainage that has left 17 miles of the Alamosa River devoid of fish and other aquatic life. The mine was permitted as a ‘zero discharge’ mine.[5] Montana and Wisconsin have since banned similar mines as a result of these and other disasters.

It’s clear to us that PolyMet’s Canadian officials don’t want to be held financially responsible for their mine’s cleanup and reclamation costs because they know that the long-term environmental damage to our watersheds, waterways and other natural resources will likely exceed the value (many times over) of the copper and other minerals they manage to extract from the ground. PolyMet’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) says as much, stating that:[6]

• Water leaching from the waste rock piles is expected to be contaminated for up to 2,000 years.
• The West Mine Pit will overflow at Mine Year 65 (45 years after expected mine closure), contaminating the adjacent Partridge River with sulfates and heavy metals.
• Groundwater at the mine site is expected to exceed water quality standards.
• Due to structural instability, the tailings basin has a “low margin of safety.1″[7]

It’s also clear that PolyMet’s proposed mining operation will most likely contaminate waters that flow into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and tributaries of Lake Superior.[8] The very lifeblood of northern Minnesota’s economy is its healthy watersheds and waterways, but PolyMet’s proposed mine waste will be leaching sulfuric acid into those same northern Minnesota waterways “for up to 2,000 years.”

In essence, what this amounts to (i.e., not holding PolyMet accountable for remediation and cleanup costs) is a corporate bailout for a Canadian company. American’s hard-earned tax dollars shouldn’t be used to subsidize foreign companies who are going to leave us with a legacy of 2,000 years of poisoned lakes, streams, and rivers. Adding insult to injury, the raw materials dug up from Minnesota’s public lands are going to be sold on the world market, very likely to countries with emerging economies, like China.

We end by asking a simple question: is 20 years worth of copper mining jobs worth 2,000 years of poisoned waterways and watersheds that will cost the rest of us millions, and possibly billions, to clean up? The risks to taxpayers and northern Minnesota’s waterways cannot be overstated and should not be brushed under the rug by short-sighted legislators. If PolyMet officials won’t agree to abide by tough, common sense legislation that requires them to be held fully accountable for all future remediation and cleanup costs, thereby protecting taxpayers from having to pay to clean up their toxic mess, it’s time to send them back to Canada.

Coalition Spokesmen:

Len Anderson
Izaak Walton League
218-879-6521
bander@northlc.com

David Lien
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers719-650-6526
dlien2@yahoo.com

Darrell Spencer
Izaak Walton League
218-724-4226
ds@leaveatrail.biz

[1] Charley Shaw.  “Copper controversy.”  Capitol Report: 2/23/09
[2] Tom Kenworthy.  “Prospecting Reform: Will Congress Finally Overhaul The General Mining Act of 1872?”  Trout: Fall 2008, p.23
[3] Roger Di Silvestro.  “A Legalized Assault on Public Lands.”  National Wildlife: April/May 2008
[4] Jim DiPeso.  “The 1872 Mining Law: Trumping Capitalism and Conservative Principles.”  C.E.P. Quarterly: Winter 2006
[5] Ryan Hunter.  “3,000 Acre Copper Mine Proposed Near Mount St. Helens.”  BlueOregon: 2/10/06
[6] Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (FBWW).  “DNR schedules PolyMet public meetings.”  FBWW: 11/19/09
[7] Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness (FBWW).  “DNR schedules PolyMet public meetings.”  FBWW: 11/19/09
[8] Tom Meersman.  “DNR leaves out public debate at mining project meetings.”  [Minneapolis-St. Paul] Star-Tribune: 12/9/09

The speeches, which you can watch in the video below, primarily addressed the region’s need for jobs, which is not be the emphasis of an environmental review process. Additionally, while repeating claims about new technology and “doing it right,” none of the politicians provided any specifics about the DEIS or the mine proposal.

Watch for yourself and decide if these speeches were appropriate at an event where the general public was not allowed to speak about the project:

Thank you to Craig Stellmacher for providing the video. (And please excuse the pre-video advertising.)