Storms start to move out of Minnesota, continue for western Wisconsin

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

Two environmental groups that have been critical of PolyMet's proposed copper-nickel mine are making a final attempt to have the comment period on the project's environmental study extended.

The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness last week sent letters to the state Department of Natural Resources and the federal agencies overseeing the study, citing missing data associated with the nearly 2,200-page document. The groups asked for the comment period, which ends Thursday, to be extended by 30 days.


Aaron Klemz, a spokesman for Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, said the agencies have not yet responded to the request. About a week before the letters were sent, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources denied a previous request for an extension.


But in letters to agency officials, the environmental groups said experts they have hired to analyze the supplemental draft environmental impact statement have identified missing data, as well as a mitigation plan that they say is not fully described in the document and could have a potential design flaw. 


The groups said the missing data include geochemistry information used to estimate water pollutants. The geochemistry data the experts did receive were complicated and not well-organized, they said. 


As for the potential design flaw, the groups said the environmental study briefly mentions pumping a large volume of water from one of the mine pits during reclamation but does not provide supporting documentation. Experts working for the groups believe the plan could be problematic because the pit could go dry, exposing it to air and making the rock reactive and therefore a potential threat to the environment, the letters said.


"These are critical issues that DNR should be receiving comments about," wrote Kathryn Hoffman, a Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy attorney. "DNR staff has taken many years to review these documents and draft the [supplemental draft environmental impact statement]. 


A credible review by citizen organizations is in some ways a greater task because we do not have the familiarity with the history of work and documentation, and must take the time to track down and review all underlying documentation to provide credible and helpful comments."

DNR spokesman Chris Niskanen said the DNR is sticking to the Thursday deadline. He said the complexity of the data and other issues similar to those raised by the environmental groups were considered when the 90-day comment period was designed. Niskanen also said the 90-day period was on the upper end of time given for similarly complex projects

"We appreciate the high level of public interest in it and have done everything we can to make sure the public has ample time to comment on it," he said.

The agency has collected more than 39,000 comments on the project thus far, and thousands more are expected before the deadline.

Elizabeth Dunbar

Author

The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness last week sent letters to the state Department of Natural Resources and the federal agencies overseeing the study, citing missing data associated with the nearly 2,200-page document.

Critics of PolyMet mine want state to extend comment period

Go Deeper.

Like this?