REGIONAL - Tribal authorities cooperating in the preparation of PolyMet Mining’s supplemental environmental impact statement are expressing fundamental disagreements with key science and conclusions in the 1,800-page preliminary draft document. In addition, they are challenging the longstanding claim by lead agencies and mining supporters that Minnesota has and maintains strict enforcement of environmental rules pertaining to operating mines in the state.

The lengthy tribal comments, provided by the Fond du Lac Band as well as the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, or GLIFWC, appear to have played a role in the latest delay in the expected release of the draft EIS. The report had been scheduled for release in early September, but officials overseeing the project now say the draft version will be released in late November.

The report also faced significant critique by some officials within the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for a large number of errors. Those DNR comments will likely lead to changes before the draft report is issued in November. Some of the tribal comments may lead to changes, but in other cases, those comments will be incorporated into a dissenting view that’s expected to be included in an appendix to the study.

The extensive comment provided by a number of agencies was not unexpected, according to Steve Colvin, the DNR’s Deputy Director for Ecological and Water Resources.      “The analyses in the EIS are very complex,” said Colvin. “It is very difficult to describe the relationships among geology, hydrology, geochemistry and water chemistry in a way that is understandable to the public. The points raised by all reviewers were very helpful in identifying opportunities to enhance clarity, but were not beyond the scope of what might be expected with a draft environmental review document of this scope.”

Tribal concerns

Unlike some Ojibwaebands in Wisconsin, which have actively opposed mining in that state, the Minnesota bands have not voiced opposition to mining in principle. “The direction that I get from Fond du Lac tribal leadership, is that we’re not looking to stop mining,” said Nancy Schuldt, the band’s Water Projects Coordinator. “The bands are not opposed to economic development, but they believe it should happen within existing state and federal regulations.”

And that’s where some Minnesota bands have concerns, she said. “We hear the claims that this should be done in Minnesota, where it will be done right, but those claims ring pretty hollow to us. We are well aware of how lax the actual enforcement is.”

Both Fond du Lac and GLIFWC comments raise concerns about many of the conclusions in the draft document. “We have a fundamental disagreement over the science being used and the interpretation of it,” said Schuldt.

Among the specific differences is the cost of what tribal officials say is likely to be perpetual water treatment to control acid runoff from waste rock piles. “There is no supporting evidence of effective non-mechancial treatment for the volumes and concentrations of pollutants that will result… and persist for centuries,” stated the Fond du Lac Band in its comments.

Comments from GLIFWC were equally strong. “The NorthMet project is a perpetual maintenance and water treatment project,” wrote the GLIFWC staff in its comments. “[Provide] a clear statement that the state of Minnesota will ultimately be responsible for conducting any long-term maintenance and/or cleanup because it is not realistic to assume that this mining company will exist past closure.”

In addition to water treatment, GLIFWC officials object to the quality of the water impact modeling, projected impacts on wild rice, and the elimination of an underground mining alternative.

The concerns raised by the bands could help refine the draft EIS, but are unlikely to overturn the major conclusions. “We’re not driving the boat here,” said Schuldt. “And we haven’t been terribly successful in changing the opinions of the lead agencies.”

Schuldt said it isn’t only the tribal authorities who have raised objections to conclusions in the preliminary EIS. “There are a number of issues where the DNR or the Army Corps don’t agree with things that have been written.”

While the EIS report is being paid for by PolyMet and overseen by the DNR, the Army Corps and the U.S. Forest Service, much of the actual work of writing and assembling the report was done by a private consultant.

DNR’s Colvin acknowledged that fundamental differences exist between the various agencies, but he said that should not be seen as a reflection on the science itself. “This work certainly requires scientific expertise and professional judgment, but that does not mean that the conclusions are subjective in the common sense of the term,” he said.

But Colvin does acknowledge that the sheer number of issues of concern identified by cooperating and lead agency staff is substantial.

“We anticipated that there would be numerous revisions to the preliminary draft, but there were more comments to evaluate and revisions to consider than we had initially expected,” he said. “We decided to spend more time so that we could thoroughly consider the important comments we received from the other agencies. We are taking a hard and objective look at the project and want to publish the best possible public review document for this very complex project.”