A majority of St. Louis County Commissioners support non ferrous mining between Duluth and Ely, despite the fact this has never been done safely in an environment that was not arid, we are in delicate wetlands and watersheds that flow into the great Lake Superior. St. Louis County is steward to these watersheds and the purity of the water that flows in them.

The map above shows the Duluth Complex - a sulfide and ore bearing area of mineral estate land - the location of Polymet due north of Duluth. The Boundary Waters are just north of Polymet, the Superior National Forest surrounds Polymet and the mining exploration includes the watersheds of the St. Louis and Cloquet Rivers as well as Lake Superior. Toxic wate will seep from the plant , already does from a dump on the existing site. More waste means more pollution going into the wetlands and waters. When sulfuric acid dumps into wetlands it forms toxic methylated mercury - the very form of mercury referred to in the movie to the left.

This movie was made at the Polymet DEIS Meeting in December. This was a public meeting, not a hearing - two politicians were allowed to address the assembled citizens for about 15 minutes. Then the DNR's hired consultant group presented an overview of the Polymet project for precisely 30 minutes. Citizens were not permitted to speak to the assembled group - it was a meeting not a hearing - and that met the legal requirements for informing the public. There was feedback at the time that the public wanted to hear one another's statements but that was not allowed, statements were given one on one and recorded or sought in writing. Before and after the "meeting" there were DNR staff in a large hall, citizens were able to ask them questions as in this instance. The answers were complex and important though often difficult to hear. There was nowhere to sit as a citizen, only the staff were given chairs. It was a challenging learning environment.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/155219/

Published December 20 2009

Dissenting view: Creating our own Appalachia means giving up too much

Over the years we’ve seen, in the Appalachia region of West Virginia and eastern Kentucky, what happens when a single industry becomes a sacred cow, supported by politicians across the spectrum for their own self interest and political survival. The end result has been tops literally blown off mountains, vanishing streams and continued poverty in local communities.

This scene, unfortunately, now seems to be playing out in Northeastern Minnesota as our local, state, and national politicians compete with each other to see who can offer the loudest support for corporations entering our state to strip-mine copper, nickel, and other metals from the Iron Range.

Lost in the politicians’ rush to support this new type of mining in Minnesota is not only the horrid record of similar projects across the country, but facts disclosed in the just-released draft environmental review for the PolyMet proposal.

For instance, the proposed mine site is within the Superior National Forest, where an open pit strip mine is not even allowed. Instead of enforcing this provision to protect a public resource, the U.S. Forest Service entered into private negotiations for an exchange of national forest lands with PolyMet.

As I understand it, the proposed mine would directly destroy more than 850 acres of high-quality wetlands with more than 650 additional acres of wetlands indirectly impaired. The total wetlands impact would be more than 1,500 acres. And the vast majority of the required wetlands mitigation would occur outside the St. Louis River watershed.

Lakes and streams downstream of the proposed site already are impaired due to mercury pollution, prompting fish consumption advisories. The proposed mine could result in seepage of high sulfate concentrations, which, according to the draft analysis, could create “high risk situations” for mercury methylation. As explained in the analysis, methyl mercury is the “active form of mercury that accumulates in fish and is toxic to humans and wildlife.” The proposed mine would place tailings on the former LTV tailings basin, which is unlined and already causing seepage to groundwater and surface water.

According to the experts of tribal cooperating agencies, water collection and treatment could be needed for 2,000 years to avoid further water-quality contamination. How do you factor that into any financial assurance from the mining company?

The PolyMet mine also could destroy nearly 1,500 acres of critical habitat for Canada lynx and wolves. Moreover, the project could affect two of only 13 remaining wildlife corridors across the Iron Range, with additional projects anticipated to affect nine of these corridors.

The mine is expected to generate nearly 400 million tons of waste rock and account for an annual carbon footprint of 767,648 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

The mine site is located within the 1854 Treaty Ceded Territory, where the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and Grand Portage Band of Chippewa retain hunting, fishing and gathering rights.

And PolyMet is just the first of a number of potential copper-nickel mines in Northeastern Minnesota, with our political leadership showing little restraint in its thirst for supporting this type of industry across the region.

If we commit to decades of additional and environmentally harmful mining, are we locking ourselves into a permanent resource-extraction economy — at the price of long-term pollution from Lake Superior to the Boundary Waters — while driving away other industry and points of view?

Too bad our politicians have apparently failed to ask this question.

Marc Fink of Duluth is a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity.