Final SDEIS Comments From PolyMet

PolyMet Mining Comments on the
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange
March 13, 2014
Comment 1.
Executive Summary, p. ES-7
The third paragraph states that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) studied the original
NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action between 2005 and 2009. Use of the defined term
NorthMet Project Proposed Action in this context is confusing because the proposed
action studied in the Draft EIS was substantially different than the proposed action being
studied in the SDEIS. To avoid confusion over the nature of the alternatives studied in
the two documents, PolyMet recommends changing the l anguage to state that
Between 2005 and 2009, the USACE and MDNR evaluated PolyMets original
mining proposal.
Comment 2.
Executive Summary, pp. ES-7 and ES-10
The terms NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange, rather than the defined
terms NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action and Land Exchange Proposed Action, are
used on these pages. To avoid confusion, PolyMet recommends consistent use of the
defined terms.
Comment 3.
Under the heading Cooperating Agencies, the SDEIS describes USEPAs
responsibilities to review and comment on an EIS under Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act. USEPA does this for all Environmental Impact Statements, even when it is not
acting as a cooperating agency. USEPA has formally participated in the preparation of
the current SDEIS as a cooperating agency, which is not the same thing as fulfilling its
responsibilities under CAA Section 309. PolyMet recommends cl arifying this point by
adding a sentence to this paragraph that explicitly notes EPAs status as a cooperating
agency.
PolyMet Comments
NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange SDEIS
March 13, 2014
Page 2 of 70
Comment 4.
The first sentence on this page indicates that completion of mining in the East Pit will
occur in approximately year 11 after the start of mining. By contrast, the first sentence
in the paragraph following the three bullet points states that mining in the East Pit will
end by year 11 after the start of mining. The second statement is inaccurate. Mining
in the East Pit will end approximately 11 years after mining, but not necessarily by year
11.
Comment 5.
Executive Summary, pp. ES-23 ES-24
In the last paragraph of the Mining Operations Section on page ES-23, the SDEIS
defines process water in connection with the Mine Site. On page ES-24, the SDEIS
refers to Pl ant Site process water. To clarify and define terms, page ES-23 should be
changed to refer to Mine Site process water, and Plant Site process water should be
defined by adding a sentence (see bold text below) to the l ast paragraph of the
Processing Operations Section on page ES-23:
Water seepage from the Tailings Basin would be collected by the groundwater
containment system and sent to either the Tailings Basin pond or the Plant Site WWTP.
All other water that is collected at the Plant Site, such as water used during
processing, and water that contacts the plant site facilities (collectively referred
to as Plant Site process water) will also be treated at the Plant Site WWTP. Treated
water would be used to augment flows in the streams that would otherwise receive
reduced fl ows because of the Tailings Basin groundwater containment system.
Comment 6.
Executive Summary, pp. ES-35 to ES-36
PolyMet recommends that the Executive Summary explicitly state that aluminum
concentrations in the water, or the l owering of the hardness caused by storm water,
represent natural or background concentrations and/or are the result of natural
processes, not process water from the NorthMet Project.
Comment 7.
Executive Summary, pp. ES-38 ES-39
The SDEIS indicates that the NorthMet Project could potentially affect water quality by
increasing solute concentrations above Cl ass 2B (aquatic life) standards. This appears
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 3 of 70
to refer to the aluminum and lead exceedances discussed earl ier in the Executive
Summary. As explained in Comment 6 above, PolyMet recommends that the Executive
Summary explicitly state that any such exceedances would be the result of background
and/or naturally occurring concentrations or processes, not process water from the
NorthMet project.
Comment 8.
The second full paragraph beginning with the phrase natural resources does not
accurately summarize the discussion of cultural resources in the SDEIS. PolyMet
recommends that the paragraph be replaced with the following: Cultural resources
under NEPA can also include natural resources of cultural importance to the Bands.
The Co-lead agencies have considered the effects of the Proposed Action on such
resources, including 1854 Treaty resources, under NEPA. The Co-lead agencies have
concluded that, whil e the Proposed Action has the potential to have effects on 1854
Treaty resources, construction and operation of the Proposed Action is not likely to
significantly reduce overall avail ability of 1854 Treaty resources that are typically part of
subsistence activities in the 1854 Ceded Territory.
Comment 9.
PolyMet addresses the issue of alternatives devel opment, which is discussed in this
section of the Executive Summary, in Attachment A to these comments.
Comment 10.
PolyMet addresses the issue of the Land Exchange Proposed Action, which is
discussed on these pages, in Attachment B to these comments.
Comment 11.
In Tabl e 1, the Land Use effects of the Proposed Connected Actions are described in
the first bullet point as [n]o effects on land use that would require changes in
ordinances or comprehensive forest plans. This language is confusing, given that the
NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action would invol ve the construction of an open pit mine.
PolyMet proposes changing this language to say: Changes in land use would occur
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 4 of 70
after the Land Exchange Proposed Action and would not require changes in ordinances
or comprehensive forest pl ans.
Comment 12.
Although the co-lead agencies have concluded that a segment of the Beaver Bay to
Lake Vermilion Trail is an eligible historic property, the SDEIS alternates between
referring to the BBLV Trail and the BBLV Trail Segment. To ensure consistency with
the co-leads eligibility determination, PolyMet recommends that the agencies
consistently refer to the property as the BBLV Trail Segment.
This comment applies throughout all Cultural Resources sections in the SDEIS.
Comment 13.
PolyMet recommends that the section of the chart dealing with Cultural Resources &
Historic Properties be referred to simply as Cultural Resources since that term is
inclusive of historic properties.
Comment 14.
Section 1.4.5, pp. 1-17 1-18
The second sentence in section 1.4.5, Financial Assurance, explains that financial
assurance instruments covering the estimated costs of recl amation must be submitted
to and approved by the MDNR. As discussed elsewhere in the SDEIS, Minnesota non-
ferrous mining rules also require that that financial assurance estimates be updated
annually. PolyMet recommends noting that fact here.
Comment 15.
Section 2.3.2.2, p. 2-5
The first sentence in Section 2.3.2.2, Revised Proposed Action and Alternatives,
states that the NorthMet Project Proposed Action has changed greatly since the
rel ease of the DEIS. The use of the phrase changed greatly is ambiguous. The
modifications to the proposal studied in the DEIS are described in detail elsewhere in
the SDEIS. PolyMet accordingly recommends revising the first sentence in Section
2.3.2.2 to read: As a result of input from the public, Cooperating Agencies, and the Co-
lead Agencies via the workgroups, and additional modeling and impact analyses,
PolyMets mining proposal has been modified since the rel ease of the DEIS.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 5 of 70
Comment 16.
Section 2.4.2, p. 2-8
The second bullet point in Section 2.4.2, Adequacy Determi nation/Records of
Deci sion, states that the USACE will issue a ROD [f]ollowing a 30-day comment
period. Under NEPA, the 30-day period following issuance of a Final EIS is not a
comment period. Rather, under 40 C.F.R. 1506.10(b), agencies are simply
prohibited from making a decision on the proposed action until 90 days after publication
of a notice of availability for a draft EIS, or 30 days after publication of a notice of
availability for a final EIS. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations do not
require agencies to solicit comments on the FEIS during this 30-day waiting period.
Comment 17.
Section 2.5, p. 2-8
The first bullet on this page does not specify which permits would be transferred to
PolyMet. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has stated that the NPDES permit
for the Tailings Basin would not be transferred. Instead, a new permit would be issued.
Comment 18.
Section 3.1.1.5, p. 3-3
The south seepage management system is not mentioned at all in this section. This is a
rel ativel y new engineering feature that was constructed as part of the Consent Decree.
It should be listed as part of the existing infrastructure, since it is already in place.
Comment 19.
Section 3.2.1, p. 3-7
The fifth bullet on this page refers to temporary features that will be removed and
reclaimed before or at cl osure, including roads. It is important to note, however, that not
all of the roads will be removed or reclaimed, as some are needed for the post-cl osure
period.
Comment 20.
Section 3.2.1, p. 3-13, Table 3.2-1 (Column: NorthMet Project Proposed
Action, Row: Plant Site)
The fourth bullet on this page refers to a bentonite layer on top of the Tailings Basin to
restrict oxygen and water infiltration with pond. PolyMet recommends clarifying that
there is a bentonite layer on the outer dam slopes during construction and that, during
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 6 of 70
closure, a bentonite layer will be added to the top of the Tailings Basin. As currently
written, the reader may incorrectly assume that a bentonite layer will be added at
construction, below the new tailings.
Comment 21.
Section 3.2.1, p. 3-17, Table 3.2-2
Recl amation of the Category 1 Stockpile is schedul ed to begin in Year 14. As currently
written, reclamation of the Category 1 Stockpil e is included only in Years 16-20. It
should also be included in Years 11-16.
Comment 22.
Section 3.2.1, p. 3-17, Table 3.2-2
The movement of waste rock from the Category 2/3 stockpile to the pit will be
compl eted by the end of operations (Year 20). As currently written, the SDEIS
incorrectly indicates that this activity will occur after year 20.
Comment 23.
Section 3.2.2.1.1, pp. 3-23 3-31, Figures 3.2-5 through 3.2-9
The transmission lines are not shown correctly on these figures. The figures should
show a connection between the transmission line south of the Central Pit and the line
south of the Category 1 stockpile.
Comment 24.
Section 3.2.2.1.1, p. 3-31, Figure 3.2-9
The process water piping from the Category 1 Stockpile should connect to the WWTF.
The drainage from the Category 1 Stockpile Groundwater Containment System will be
treated at the WWTF.
Comment 25.
Section 3.2.2.1.7, p. 3-43, Table 3.2-7
This table is titled Key Characteristics of Overburden and Waste Rock Management.
However, it does not include any information about overburden management. The
Category 2/3 and 4 stockpiles will be used to store saturated overburden; however,
there is no indication of this in these sections and the Maximum Volume listed for
these stockpil es only includes the volume of waste rock, not the maximum volume of
the stockpil es. The peat and unsaturated overburden will be stored in the Overburden
Storage and Laydown Area (OSLA), which is also not included in this table.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 7 of 70
Recommend either changing the table title to Key Characteristics of Waste Rock
Management or update the table to include maximum capacity of the stockpiles for
overburden storage, as listed in the Rock and Overburden Management Pl an (v5)
Section 6.2 (Adaptive Management) and information about the OSLA.
Comment 26.
Section 3.2.2.1.7, p. 3-43, Table 3.2-7
The Category 1 Stockpile category shows that the maximum footprint of 526 acres is
reached in year 6. However, the Category 1 Stockpile will reach the maximum footprint
of 526 acres in Year 21, after it is reclaimed for the cover. The stockpil e footprint is 508
acres at the end of Year 6, when the footprint is built with slopes at an angle of repose.
The stockpile is regraded to a 3.5:1 sl ope prior to pl acement of the stockpil e cover,
which makes the final footprint 526 acres in Year 21.
Comment 27.
Section 3.2.2.1.7, p. 3-43, Table 3.2-7
The Phases of Devel opment section for the Category 4 Stockpile category shows waste
from the Category 4 Stockpile being transferred to the East Pit in Years 11-20.
However, the Category 4 Stockpile will be moved completely by Year 11 to allow for
mining of the Central Pit to start that same year.
Comment 28.
Section 3.2.2.1.7, p. 3-44
The second paragraph on this page states that unsaturated overburden use would
require MDNR approval. This is not accurate. Unsaturated overburden should not
require approval from the MDNR.
Comment 29.
Section 3.2.2.1.7, p. 3-44
The fourth sentence of the third paragraph on this page should state: Applications for
saturated overburden would include those where water contacting the construction
material would be collected or drained to the mine pits, where it would be placed back
below the water table or above a membrane liner system. There should be an or in
this sentence.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 8 of 70
Comment 30.
Section 3.2.2.1.8, p. 3-46, Category 1 Stockpile Water Containment
System and Cover
For clarity, PolyMet suggests editing the second paragraph and the beginning of the
third paragraph in this section as follows:
Figure 3.2-11 shows the containment system that would consist of a cutoff wall (a low
permeability compacted soil hydraulic barrier extending down to bedrock) combined
with a drainage collection system surrounding the perimeter of the stockpile near its toe.
The cutoff wall would be constructed by excavating a trench down to bedrock backfilling
it with a compacted soil material or by pl acing a manufactured geosynthetic cl ay barrier
in the trench. Compacted soil The cutoff wall material would have a hydraulic
conductivity specification of no more than 1x10-5 centimeters per second (cm/sec).
Comment 31.
Section 3.2.2.1.8, p. 3-47
In the first paragraph, the description of the Category 1 Stockpil e groundwater
containment system does not adequately describe the sumps. There are two sumps:
one at the northeast corner and one on the south side, al ong the center of the stockpile.
To more accurately describe the system, Pol yMet recommends making the following
changes: Stockpile drainage collected in the sumps would be conveyed to a low point
near the northeast corner of the stockpil e. From the sumps, there, a non-perforated
pipe would convey the drainage to a collection sump where it would be pumped to the
WWTF.
Comment 32.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-63, Proposed Action and Alternatives
The l ast sentence in the paragraph under the heading Reclamation Planning correctly
states that PolyMet will submit an annual Contingency Recl amation Plan pursuant to
Minnesota Rul es 6132.1300. In the interest of completeness, the paragraph should
also note that the rul es require PolyMet to provide financial assurance sufficient to carry
out that recl amation plan.
Comment 33.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-63, Rail Transfer Hopper
The second paragraph inaccurately refers to disposal of material (remaining ore and
sediment from ditches and process water ponds) in the West Pit. This material would be
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 9 of 70
disposed in the East Pit, as described in Section 2.1.2 of the Reclamation Plan (v3)
(Rail Transfer Hopper).
Comment 34.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-64, Mine Pit Reclamation
The fifth sentence of the second paragraph on this page refers to the overburden
sloping as height-to-vertical ratio of 2.5:1. Height and vertical mean the same thing
(i.e., both refer to the vertical plane). PolyMet suggests changing this to read either
horizontal-to-vertical or l ength-to-height.
Comment 35.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-64; Section 3.2.2.3.10, p. 3-123
On page 3-64, the SDEIS states: The WWTF would be upgraded to include RO
treatment to achieve an effluent with a sulfate concentration of less than 10 mg/L.
Similarly, the SDEIS states on page 3-123: The WWTP would be constructed south of
the Tailings Basin near the coarse-crusher and would include a RO unit designed to
achieve a sulfate concentration of 10 mg/L in effluent. The design of the WWTP could
be adjusted to accommodate varying influent streams and discharge requirements.
It is not cl ear when reading the two statements copied above that the water treatment
goal for the effluent sulfate concentration of 10 mg/L is based on meeting the current 10
mg/L sulfate standard for waters used for the production of wild rice (Minnesota Rule
7050.0224, Class 4A water quality standard). To clarify, and because that standard is
subject to adjustment, the statement to achieve an effluent sulfate concentration
that meets the sulfate standard for waters used for the production of wild rice
should be used instead of to achieve an effluent with a sulfate concentration of less
than 10 mg/L.
Comment 36.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-65, Stockpile Reclamation
The last sentence inaccurately states state the Category 4 Stockpile would be
compl etel y removed by year 12 to allow mining in the Central Pit. The Central Pit mining
begins in Year 11, as stated earlier in the SDEIS (such as Tabl e 3.2-4). Therefore, the
Category 4 Stockpil e would be completely removed by year 11.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 10 of 70
Comment 37.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p. 3-65
The second paragraph describes recl amation of the Ore Surge Pile as any remaining
material would be relocated to the West Pit after operations cease. However, no
material will be disposed of in the West Pit. As described in Section 7.2.2 of the Rock
and Overburden Management Plan (v5), any material remaining in the Ore Surge Pile at
the end of operations will be transported to the Process Pl ant for processing or
disposed of in the East Pit.
Comment 38.
Section 3.2.2.1.10, p.3-71, Watershed Restoration
The fifth paragraph on this page, which lists all ponds that would be either filled or
converted to wetlands, should include the Rail Transfer Hopper Pond.
Comment 39.
The fourth paragraph under the heading Water Management states that [b]ased on
the current GoldSim P90 model predictions, treatment activities could be required for a
minimum of 200 years at the Mine Site . . . . This statement is inaccurate and
inconsistent with the discussion of the GoldSim water quality modeling elsewhere in the
SDEIS.
Comment 40.
Section 3.2.2.2.2, p. 3-83, Existing Conditions
This section inaccurately describes both the existing Cliffs Erie railroad and Dunka
Road as being within the Transportation and Utility Corridor (see Figure 3.2-20). Cliffs
Erie railroad actually is not within the Transportation and Util ity Corridor, as Figure 3.2-
20 accurately shows.
Comment 41.
Section 3.2.2.2.3, p.3-83, New Construction and Pre-production
Development
The bulleted list on this page should include construction of approximately 5,750-foot
connecting track between the Cliffs Erie track and the existing PolyMet track that serves
the Coarse Crusher Building at the Process Plant. This new track is accurately shown
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 11 of 70
on Figure 3.2-20 as a new construction Railroad Connection, but it is not described in
this sections text.
Comment 42.
Section 3.2.2.3.4, p. 3-102, Beneficiation Process Water
The SDEIS states: Throughout operations, the average annual makeup water drawn
from Colby Lake would vary between 20 and 810 gallons per minute (gpm), with an
average annual demand of 275 gpm. These numbers are inaccurate. The sentence
should be revised to show a variation between 120 and 860 gallons per minute (gpm),
with an average annual demand of 320 gpm. This section should also acknowl edge that
additional Colby Lake water would be needed for stream augmentation.
Comment 43.
Section 3.2.2.3.10, p. 3-117, Engineered Water Controls
In the second full paragraph on this page, PolyMet recommends providing additional
details on the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) to make it clear that the likelihood
of the emergency overflow channel being used is extremely low. PolyMet suggests
editing the text to read:
Pond elevation would be controlled by pumping any excess FTB pond water to the
WWTP. An emergency overflow channel would be constructed as a backup means of
controlling pond el evation, but discharge from the emergency overfl ow is not expected.
The emergency overflow is provided for protection of the dams in the rare event that
freeboard within the FTB is not sufficient to contain all stormwater. Such instances have
the potential to occur in the event of a probable maximum precipitation (PMP) rainfall
event or some fraction thereof. PMP rainfall events are rare and such an event has a
low likelihood of being experienced during the life of the basin. The PMP does not have
an assigned return period, but it is usually assumed by hydrologists to be on the order
of 100 million to 10 billion years. Based on extrapolation of 72-hour rainfall depth data
from US Weather Bureau-Office of Hydrology Technical Paper TP 49, and the assumed
return period of the PMP of 100 million years, a 1/3 PMP event could occur roughly
once in 1,000 years and a 2/3 PMP could occur once in 500,000 years. On this basis,
even though there is a low likelihood of overfl ow, it is standard practice in dam design to
accommodate even low probability overflows in a manner that protects the integrity of
the dams. Given the low likelihood that there would ever be flow in the emergency
overflow channel, it is not considered in the impact analysis.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 12 of 70
Comment 44.
The third paragraph in Section 3.2.2.3.12, Reclamation and Long-term Cl osure
Management, contains a list of reclamation objectives and post-reclamation
activities. These terms are not used consistently with the applicabl e Minnesota Rul es.
Under the non-ferrous rules, there are two distinct periods during reclamation: cl osure
and post-cl osure. Cl osure is a process that begins when mining ceases, and ends
when the recl amation standards identified in the reclamation plan have been achieved.
Thus, while it may be reasonable to describe recl amation objectives for the NorthMet
Project Proposed Action, it would be more accurate to indicate that these objectives will
be achieved during the closure process. Post-closure maintenance activities are
defined in the applicable rules as activities necessary to sustain recl amation. Post-
closure maintenance activities begin when the cl osure process is complete, and end
when active recl amation (e.g., water treatment plants) is no longer necessary to sustain
reclamation standards. Thus, the activities described in this paragraph as post-
reclamation are more accuratel y described as post-closure maintenance activities.
The same comment applies to text on page 3-137.
Comment 45.
Section 3.2.2.4, p. 3-136, Proposed Action and Alternatives
The first sentence of the third paragraph in Section 3.2.2.4, Financial Assurance,
states that the engineering design and planning needed to calcul ate financial assurance
is typically made availabl e during the permitting process and was not avail able at the
time that this SDEIS was prepared. While this statement is generally accurate, it
leaves a misleading impression that something is missing from the SDEIS. The
paragraph should specify that NEPA and MEPA regulations do not require a discussion
of financial assurance, and that PolyMet has voluntarily provided as much information
as possible at the present time.
Comment 46.
The first sentence in the second full, non-bulleted paragraph on this page indicates that
a final Reclamation Plan and Contingency Reclamation Cost Estimate will be based on
studies final ized through permitting (pursuant to the EIS process). This reference to
permitting pursuant to the EIS process is confusing and should be clarified. PolyMet is
not certain what the SDEIS is trying to convey about the rel ationship between the
permitting and EIS processes, but it should be noted that those are separate processes
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 13 of 70
and that information gathered during the EIS process will be used when agencies make
permitting decisions.
Comment 47.
Section 3.2.3, p. 3-139, Alternatives
PolyMet addresses the issue of alternatives devel opment, which is discussed in this
section, in Attachment A to these comments.
Comment 48.
Section 3.2.3.3, p. 3-147, Development of the Northmet Project Proposed
Action
Tabl e 3.2-16 on page 3-147 provides a comparison of DEIS and SDEIS proposed
actions. The table cell corresponding to the first row/first column of the table should
state that Category 1 and 2 waste rock would be stored in a permanent lined/ soil-
covered stockpile (Category 1/2 Stockpil e) north of the west pit (years 1-11). This edit
makes clear that the SDEIS proposed action (described in the second column of the
table as including a geomembrane cover system) will include a significantly improved
cover system rel ative to the cover described in the DEIS.
The third column of Table 3.2-16 should also acknowl edge the other improved
outcomes rel ated to the addition of a geomembrane cover system to the Category 1
Stockpile. For example, the following additional bullet could be added to column three:
Substantial reduction of stockpile seepage volume that will need to be collected and
treated at the WWTF and significant improvement in West Pit water quality in cl osure.
Comment 49.
General comment on all Cultural Resources Sections in Chapters 4, 5
and 6
The SDEIS often references consultation with the Bands and SHPO, but fails to include
PolyMet in these references. When discussing consultation under Section 106 of the
NHPA, PolyMet, as the project proponent, should be identified as a consulting party and
should be included in the explanation of the Section 106 process. Examples of where
PolyMet should be noted/included as a consulting party include: the third to l ast
sentence on page 4-259 (Section 4.2.8.3); the l ast full sentence on page 4-262 (Section
4.2.9.2.1); the second to last sentence in Section 4.2.9.2.2 on page 4-263; the second
to last sentence in the second to l ast paragraph on page 4-264; the second to last
paragraph on page 4-302; the last full paragraph on page 4-303; the third paragraph on
page 4-555; the second and third paragraphs on page 5-479; the first full paragraph on
page 5-482; the second to last full paragraph on page 5-483; the last paragraph on
page 5-673; and the first paragraph on page 6-89.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 14 of 70
Comment 50.
Section 4.2.2.1.2, p. 4-29, Table 4.2.2-2
This table lists the mercury TMDL target date for Sabin Lake, Esquagama Lake, and
Colby Lake as 2015. The target date for those water bodies is 2025. (source: MPCA
2013. Minnesotas Final 2012 TMDL List (Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List. List
approved by USEPA, July 25, 2013).
Comment 51.
Section 4.2.2.1.4, pp. 4-37 and 4-41
The monitored mercury concentration at PM-13 (Embarrass River) is inaccurately stated
as 4.0 ng/L. In fact, PolyMets evaluation of the Plant Site at PM-13 used a background
concentration of 3.1 ng/L.
The same comment applies to Table 4.2.2-4, and the cumulative impact
discussion at p. 6-33.
Comment 52.
Section 4.2.2.1.4, p. 4-37
The first two paragraphs of this section characterize the Tailings Basin mercury samples
as consistent with baseline level s. This is not consistent with the later conclusion that
the Tail ings Basin acts as a sink for mercury. Data from locations in and near the
existing LTVSMC Tailings Basin is actually l ower than concentrations observed in the
Partridge River and Embarrass River.
This same comment applies to the second paragraph under Direct release of
mercury to the Embarrass river watershed from the tailings basin in Section
5.2.2.3.3 on page 5-205.
Comment 53.
Section 4.2.2.2.1, p. 4-43
In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the order of Duluth Complex and
Partridge River intrusion should be switched. The Partridge River intrusion is part of the
Duluth Complex.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 15 of 70
Comment 54.
Section 4.2.2.2.1, p. 4-43
In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the use of "Mesabi Iron Range" is
misleading, as it could give the impression that the Duluth Complex is in direct contact
with the Biwabik Iron Formation, which is not the case. PolyMet recommends listing a
geologic unit (Virginia Formation) here, rather than the more vague term "Mesabi Iron
Range." In addition to the cross-section shown on Figure 3.2-10, it would be helpful to
include a plan view bedrock geology map to illustrate the geometric rel ationships
between the various bedrock units.
Comment 55.
Section 4.2.2.2.1, p. 4-46, Groundwater Resources
The second sentence of the second full paragraph states: Based on limited MDNR well
records within the NorthMet Proj ect area, natural groundwater levels in the glacial till
vary seasonally between 3 and 10 ft bgs. This sentence incorrectly states that the data
is limited. Site-specific data on seasonal water level fluctuations is found in the Water
Modeling Data Package Volume 1 Mine Site (referenced in the SDEIS as PolyMet
2013i). PolyMet 2013i provides information on water level fluctuations observed in 24
wells compl eted in the glacial till at the Mine Site, some with over nine years of water
level measurements. Water level fluctuation varies between wells, but the overall range
observed in a single well is typically less than 4 ft.
Comment 56.
Section 4.2.2.2.1, p. 4-53
The range of dates cited in the bullets listed under Baseline Groundwater Quality is
inconsistent with the groundwater data used for water quality modeling. For example,
2012 data from MW-05-02, MW-05-08, and MW-05-09 were used for the model ing.
PolyMet recommends removing the dates from these bullets or revising the list so that
range of dates is consistent with data used to devel op Tabl e 4.2.2-6.
The range of dates for groundwater data used for the water qual ity modeling is as
follows:
Three older wells in the surficial aquifer, sampled from March 2005 through June
2012.
21 newer wells in the surficial aquifer, installed in November 2011 February
2012, sampled following installation through June 2012.
Five observation wells in the upper 100 ft of the bedrock, sampled from 2006 to
2010 (current SDEIS text is correct for this bullet).
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 16 of 70
Four large-diameter bedrock wells, sampl ed during aquifer testing in 2005 and
2006.
Comment 57.
Section 4.2.2.2.1, p. 4-42, Table 4.2.2-6; Section 4.2.2.3.1, p. 4-94, Table
4.2.2-22
It is not cl ear how the baseline values that are shown in Tabl e 4.2.2-6, and used for
comparison with the site-specific data, were selected. The Northeast MN baseline data
appear to be derived only from the "unconfined buried Quaternary aquifer" category.
However, the MPCA study also includes data for buried Quaternary artesian aquifers
and Quaternary water table aquifers. Either the range shown in Tabl e 4.2.2-6 should
refl ect data from all Quaternary aquifers in the MPCA report or the Final EIS should
provide an explanation as to why only a certain subset of data presented is provided.
Comment 58.
Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-61
The first paragraph describes USGS gage 04015475 as the flow record most
representative of the Project area. However, this section also should acknowledge the
presence of the recently-installed (for Teck American) flow gage at the Dunka Road
crossing near the southeast corner of the proposed Mine Site (monitoring location PM-
3/SW003) and note that, while closer to the Mine Site, the short period of record is
insufficient for use in the SDEIS. This gage also should be shown on Figure 4.2.2-1.
Comment 59.
Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-67
The first paragraph discusses why the use of the l owest expected baseflow is
conservative with respect to impacts to surface waters. The paragraph should
acknowledge that the use of a higher modeled basefl ow would lead to higher recharge
into groundwater, which would transl ate into faster solute transport times in groundwater
(although not necessarily significantly varied peak concentrations). In addition, higher
recharge would increase the expected groundwater inflow into the dewatered mine pits.
Comment 60.
Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-74
In the first paragraph, the text describing existing upper Partridge River water quality
should mention mercury and aluminum concentrations exceeding water quality
standards. The text also describes dissol ved oxygen at SW002 as the only consistent
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 17 of 70
exceedences. PolyMet reads the term consistent as meaning that all samples at that
location exceeded the standard, but that should be made more cl ear the text. The term
consistent exceedences also appears in section 4.2.6.1.2 (page 4-220), and it should
be used in the same way in that section.
Comment 61.
Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-77, Table 4.2.2-14
There are multipl e inaccuracies in Table 4.2.2-14 that should be addressed:
1. The average concentrations presented in Table 2.2.2-14 should include 2012
data. The 2012 data is included in Large Tabl e 10 of the Water Modeling Data
Package, Volume 1 Mine Site v12.
2. The number of samples at SW004a and SW004b in footnote 5 is incorrect
and should also include 2012 samples. The 2012 data omitted from the
number of samples is included in Large Tabl e 10 of the Water Modeling Data
Package, Volume 1 Mine Site v12. The number of samples at SW004a and
SW004b should be 12 samples for each location.
3. The ranges of concentrations presented in Table 4.2.2-14 do not include the
2012 data and, therefore, may be inaccurate if maxima or minima occurred in
2012.
4. The range provided for mercury concentrations (<0.0025 ng/L to 0 ng/L) is not
accurate; mercury concentrations provided in the Water Modeling Data
Package Volume 1 Mine Site v10 range from <0.5 ng/L to 18.5 ng/L.
Comment 62.
Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-77, Table 4.2.2-14, Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-80, Table
4.2.2-15, Section 4.2.2.2.2, p. 4-87, Table 4.2.2-18, Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-
123, Table 4.2.2-29, Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-132, Table 4.2.2-35
The minimum values in constituent concentration ranges shown in these tables are
presented as less than half the minimum detection limit. Minimum concentrations (when
not detected) should be presented consistently as either l ess than the minimum
detection limit (e.g., < 10 mg/L) or as a numeric value equal to half the minimum
detection limit without a less than symbol (e.g., 5 mg/L). If the latter approach is
used, the footnotes should note that minimum values represent one half the detection
limits.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 18 of 70
Comment 63.
Section 4.2.2.3.1, p. 4-95
The third sentence of the fourth paragraph presents a recharge rate of 0.3 in/yr, which is
inconsistent with the mean value of 0.61 in/yr used in the GoldSim model. As discussed
in Sections 5.2.1.3.1 and 5.2.1.3.2 of this document, average net recharge in the
Embarrass River watershed is estimated at 0.61 inches per year. A recharge rate of 0.3
in/yr represents the minimum value used in the GoldSim recharge distribution (PolyMet,
2013j; Section 5.2.1.3.2); however, it would be more appropriate to use the average
value, rather than the minimum value, for the groundwater flow discussion in the SDEIS.
Comment 64.
Section 4.2.2.3.1, p.4-110, Table 4.2.2-23
Data for the Cell 1E pond should be included in this table. Cell 1E pond data are shown
in Large Tabl e 7 of the NorthMet Project Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 -
Plant Site, Version 9, March 1, 2013.
Comment 65.
Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-121
Regarding the first sentence, PM-13 is not just downstream of the Heikkila Lake
tributary. It is more accurate to say PM-13 is downstream of the Unnamed Creek
tributary.
Comment 66.
Section 4.2.2.3.2, p.4-121
In the second sentence, it is unclear what low flows refers to. Based on the low fl ows
presented in Tabl e 4.2.2-27, PolyMet assumes the co-leads are referring to baseflow.
This should be cl arified.
Comment 67.
Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-122
In the third paragraph, the text describing the number of samples collected at PM-12.2,
PM-12.3, and PM-12.4 should include data from 2012 (2012 data appears to be
included in subsequent Table 4.2.2-29). The 2012 data is included in Large Tabl e 4 of
the Water Modeling Data Package, Volume 2 Plant Site v9.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 19 of 70
Comment 68.
Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-125, Table 4.2.2-30
The row for PM-12 should reflect that data was collected in 2012 at this location.
Comment 69.
Section 4.2.2.3.2, p. 4-129, Table 4.2.2-34
Data for PM-11 should not be presented in Table 4.2.2-34, which is titled Summary of
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Data for the Tailings Basin Surface Seeps.
Monitoring location PM-11 is located downstream of the Tailings Basin on Unnamed
Creek and is not representative of a seep. Data for PM-11 should be included in Table
4.2.2-35 (which includes tributary streams) instead.
Comment 70.
Section 4.2.3.2.2, p. 4-166, Hydrology, Wetland Vegetation, and
Community Types
In the second to last sentence of the first full paragraph, it should be cl arified that
seepage and dead spruce trees are not a cause-and-effect rel ationship. There are
many beaver dams in the area that likely play a rol e in the presence of dead spruce
trees.
Comment 71.
Section 4.2.4.2.1, p. 4-174
The last sentence under National Hierarchical Framework of Ecol ogical Units reads:
Inclusion of the One Hundred Mile Swamp would likely complete representation of
prominent ELTs in LTA 212Le11. Polymet suggests clarifying by revising this sentence
is to say: The One Hundred Mile Swamp and the two other sites surveyed provide a
compl ete representation of the prominent ELTs present within LTA 212Le11.
Comment 72.
Section 4.2.7.2, p. 4-252, Table 4.2.7-1
Footnote 1 indicates it is a State standard, but the listed value is federal standard. The
State 1-hr standard is 0.5 ppmv.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 20 of 70
Comment 73.
Section 4.2.7.2, p. 4-252, Table 4.2.7-1
Regarding the entry for sulfur dioxide 3-hour, the table could be misunderstood as
saying that the state and Federal secondary standard is 0.5. In fact, the state primary
standard is 0.5, and state secondary state standards are as indicated by footnotes. This
should be clarified in the Standard Type column and the footnotes.
Comment 74.
Section 4.2.3, p. 4-135, Wetlands
The third sentence of the third paragraph suggests that PolyMet will submit a revised
wetland permit application. In fact, Pol yMet has already submitted a revised wetland
permit application, which appears as PolyMet 2013q. NorthMet Proj ect Revised
Wetland Permit Application, Version 1. Issued August 19, 2013 in the references.
Comment 75.
Section 4.2.3.1, p. 4-139, Mine Site and Transportation and Utility
Corridor
The first sentence of this section references three figures for the location of the Mine
Site, in rel ation to Iron Lake and the Laurentian Divide. However, none of the figures
show Iron Lake or the Laurentian Divide. The text should be revised to account for this
or the figures should be edited to include Iron Lake. This issue occurs in other sections
as well, such as the first sentence of Section 4.3.3.1.
Comment 76.
Section 4.2.3.1.1, p. 4-148, Wetland Delineation and Classification
The third sentence of the first paragraph should cite the USACE memo (USACE, May
2013) in addition to the baseline wetl and type evaluation.
Comment 77.
Community Types
The first sentence of the third paragraph reads as though vegetation types are indicative
of pre-settlement conditions. However, this is misleading, as there has been a
significant amount of l ogging disturbance throughout the mine site.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 21 of 70
Comment 78.
Section 4.2.4.2.3, p. 4-179, Table 4.2.4-4, Endangered Plant Species
The new Minnesota ETSC list became effective (August 19, 2013). Botrychi um pallidum
(pal e moonwort) is not a state-endangered species anymore. Botrychium rugulosum
(St. Louis grapefern) and Eleocharis nitida (neat spikerush) are not state-threatened
anymore. All three plant species are now special concern, which means they are not
protected under Minnesotas Endangered and Threatened Species Statute (MN Statute
84.0895). Sparganium glomeratum (clustered bur reed) is not a special concern species
anymore, and has been removed from the Minnesota ETSC list. The text and Table
4.2.4-4 should be revised to reflect the new Minnesota ETSC list.
Changes should be made throughout Section 4.2.4.2.3, including the Species Life
Histories discussion, to make the information current and accurate.
Comment 79.
General comment in Sections 4.2.4, 4.3.4, 5.2.4 and 5.3.4
Scientific and common names are used inconsistently throughout these sections.
PolyMet recommends using consistent terms throughout the document for cl arity.
Comment 80.
Section 4.2.4.2.1, p. 4-170
On page 4-170, there continues to be an inconsistency between the first paragraph
under Habitat Types and the first sentence of the first paragraph under Plant
Community Surveys. The first paragraph under Habitat Types states that upland-
conifer mixed forest types are among the l east represented cover types. This is
further supported by Table 4.2.4-1, which shows upland conifer-deciduous mixed forest
as <1% of the Mine Site acreage for cover types. However, under Plant Community
Surveys, the first sentence following Table 4.2.4-1 states that the primary cover types
at the Mine site are mixed pine-hardwood forests on the uplands. Mixed pine-
hardwood forest is an upl and conifer-deciduous mixed forest cover type. PolyMet
recommends resolving this inconsistency by using MIH data in the table, rather than
GAP.
Comment 81.
Section 4.2.4.2.2, p. 4-174, Invasive Non-native Plants
The first sentence of the second paragraph under Invasive Non-native Pl ants states
that a survey was conducted on mine sites al ong the Mesabi Iron Range, and that
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 22 of 70
some species are currently present. The text should clarify where (i.e., the Mesabi Iron
Range or on the NorthMet Mine Site) these species are present.
Similarly, in Tabl e 4.2.4-2, it is uncl ear how two of the three species with the highest
percent occurrence are estimated to be uncommon on the site, while three of the five
species with the lowest percent occurrence are estimated to be common on the site.
This inconsistency should be corrected or expl ained. The EIS should also explain how
estimated abundance at the Mine Site was determined, since the text says that no
inventories of non-native invasives were conducted.
Comment 82.
Section 4.2.4.3.2, p. 4-193, Non-native Invasive Plants
The first paragraph text states that no invasive species inventories have been
conducted within the Transportation and Utility Corridor. However, the paragraph later
discusses field survey data. This could be confusing. The text should clarify that the
field survey data discussed was not a quantitative survey (i.e., not an inventory), but
rather is part of a broader ETSC and qualitative vegetation survey conducted by Barr.
Comment 83.
Section 4.2.4.3.3, p. 4-192, Table 4.2.4-7, ETSC Species
The text on page 4-192 names three ETSC species in Transportation and Utility
Corridor, but Tabl e 4.2.4-7 only lists one of these species. This inconsistency should be
resol ved.
Comment 84.
General Comment to Sections 4.2.5, 4.3.5, 5.2.5, 5.3.5
PolyMet recommends either substituting the word bat for the term Myotis or adding
(bat) after Myotis.
Comment 85.
Section 4.2.5.1.1, p. 4-201, Canada Lynx
The Canada lynx is a Minnesota special concern species effective August 19, 2013.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 23 of 70
Comment 86.
In the fifth paragraph, the statement that lynx critical habitat includes most of
northeastern Minnesota is imprecise. Pol yMet recommends adding the clarification
that the USFWS designated critical habitat does not include most of the Iron Range.
Comment 87.
Section 4.2.5.1.1, p. 4-203, Gray Wolf
The last sentence of the third paragraph references forest and brush habitats but
parenthetically cites MIHs 1 to 14. PolyMet believes the citation was intended to be
MIHs 1 and 14.
Comment 88.
Section 4.2.5.1.1, p. 4-204, Bald eagle
Regarding the last sentence of the third paragraph, there are no standing dead trees in
the existing LTVSMC Tailings Basin.
Comment 89.
Section 4.2.5.1.3, p. 4-208, RFSS
In the third paragraph, it should be noted that the northern Myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis, Northern long-eared bat) was proposed as a federally listed endangered
species by the USFWS on October 2, 2013.
Comment 90.
Section 4.2.5.1.4, p. 4-210
The second paragraph should reference Moose zone 3, not Moose zone 30.
Comment 91.
Section 4.2.5.2.2, p. 4-211
The fourth sentence of the second paragraph incorrectly states that the Tailings Basin is
unlikely to be heavily used by wildlife. The Tailings Basin is a local refuge for herds of
deer, small mammals and wol ves.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 24 of 70
Comment 92.
Section 4.2.6.1.1, p. 4-214, Aquatic Biota
The first sentence in the first paragraph references the Longnose, Wetl egs and Wyman
creeks as surface water features in the Upper Partridge River Watershed. However,
there is no discussion on these creeks or a reference to a previous discussion in the
SDEIS. PolyMet recommends either providing a similar discussion of that provided for
Mud Lake, Yelp Creek, and Second Creek on page 4-214 or explaining why such
analysis is not provided.
Comment 93.
Section 4.2.6.1.1, p. 4-219, Aquatic Biota, Watershed Level Riparian
Connectivity
The second sentence uses the term watershed while the third sentence uses the term
larger watershed. Pol yMet suggests expl aining the difference between a "watershed"
and a "larger watershed."
Comment 94.
Section 4.2.6.1.3, p. 4-221, Aquatic Biota, Fish Communities
The first sentence of the third paragraph should be revised to add Yelp Creek to the list
of streams where no fish or macroinvertebrate community or habitat characteristics
could be documented . . . .
Comment 95.
Section 4.2.6.3.3, p. 4-241, Table 4.2.6-11, Aquatic Biota
The source of data for these stream surveys should be revised as Source: Breneman
2005, Barr 2011b, and MPCA 2011c. Barr 2011b is the source of the information for
the PM sites.
Comment 96.
Section 4.2.9.1, p. 4-261
PolyMet recommends that the introductory paragraph state that the NHPA process is
proceeding on a parallel path to the NEPA process, and that effects on cultural
resources have also been considered and analyzed under NEPA.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 25 of 70
Comment 97.
Section 4.2.9.1, p. 4-261
The l ast sentence of the introductory paragraph states: Cooperating agencies have not
participated in production or endorsement of any components of the EIS or the
NorthMet Project. This statement is not entirely accurate, since the tribes have
participated in the production of components of the EIS rel ative to cultural resources as
well as the Major Differences of Opinion. The EIS should describe the tribes
participation in the devel opment of the EIS.
Comment 98.
Section 4.2.9.2.3, p. 4-269.
The second-to-l ast paragraph is uncl ear, both with respect to whether it is discussing
groundwater and/or surface water, and with respect to how that discussion fits into the
APE anal ysis. Figure 4.2.9-5, which is not referenced in this paragraph, is a
groundwater quality APE, but most of the paragraph discusses surface water quality.
PolyMet recommends revising this paragraph to explain how groundwater and surface
water affect the APE.
Comment 99.
Section 4.2.11.1.2, p. 4-349, Visual Resources
The discussion of the NorthMet Projects impacts upon visual resources notes that tribal
members exercise rights to hunt, fish, and gather on Superior National Forest lands
near the Mine Site. However, it also states that [t]he frequency with which tribal
members exercise these rights in portions of Superior National Forest with views of the
Mine Site is not known. In particul ar because the Bands are cooperating agencies, they
have had every opportunity to provide evidence of frequency. Accordingly, PolyMet
recommends adjusting this language to state that there is no evidence that tribal
members regul arly exercise their rights in this portion of the forest.
Comment 100.
Section 4.2.14.2.2, p. 4-373, Figure 4.2.14-3
The term Sensitive Fines is used on the Figure, yet neither Geotechnical Data
Package, Vol. 1, Version 4, nor preceding versions use the name Sensitive Fines.
April 12, 2013 Geotechnical Data Package, Vol. 1, Version 4 uses the name Fine
Tailings/Slimes. This material type is missing from the Legend on the l ower l eft corner
of Figure 4.2.14-3.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 26 of 70
Comment 101.
Section 4.2.14.2.2, p. 4-373, Figure 4.2.14-3
Units and labels are missing from axes (e.g., el evation in feet amsl and distance in feet)
and the dashed lines in the figures are not in the legend (l ayers of material).
Comment 102.
Community Types
In the first full sentence, fl oodplains should be cl early defined, and PolyMet
recommends including a figure showing mapped floodplains with wetl ands.
Comment 103.
Section 4.3.3.2.1, p. 4-447, Table 4.3.3-4
The table combines coniferous bogs and coniferous swamps. PolyMet recommends
separating these two wetland types here, in the same way that they are separated for
discussions of the federal lands.
This is also an issue in Tables 4.3.3-6, 4.3.3-8, 4.3.3-10, 4.3.3-12.
Comment 104.
Section 4.3.3.2.2, p.4-450, Table 4.3.3-6
The table contains inaccurate acreage for open bog and shallow marsh. Open bog
should be 2.1 acres, and shallow marsh should be 84.1 acres. In addition, the third
sentence under Tabl e 4.3.3-6 should also be edited from: Large bogs dominate much
of the east-central portion of Tract 1 to the suggested Shrub swamps dominate much
of the east-central portion of Tract 1. The current sentence is inaccurate because there
are only 2 small bogs (2.1 acres total) on the Hay Lake parcel.
Comment 105.
Section 4.3.4.1.1, p. 4-469, Invasive non-native plants
The first sentence states that non-native invasive species on the federal l ands are the
same as the Mine Site because they occupy the same area. This is not accurate. The
Mine Site is smaller than the federal lands.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 27 of 70
Comment 106.
Section 4.3.4.1.1, p. 470, Table 4.3.4-5
In footnote 2, PolyMet suggests deleting the phrase additional populations may be
present in more marginal, secondary habitat that was not surveyed, or in wetter areas.
There is no evidence (no survey) of additional populations in marginal, secondary
habitat, and the SDEIS should make that cl ear.
Comment 107.
Section 4.3.4.2.4, p. 4-477, Regional Forester Sensitive Species
The second paragraph appears to suggest that there is a correl ation between the
acreage of a given MIH cover type and the likelihood that an RFSS species that prefers
that cover type will actually be present. This is not entirely accurate. The paragraph
fails to take into account other qualitative factors that influence the likelihood of an
RFSS species being present. PolyMet recommends revising the paragraph to state that
the presence of RFSS species would be further influenced by the quality of the habitat
availabl e, not just the quantity.
Comment 108.
Sections 4.3.5.2.1 and 4.3.5.2.5
In both of these sections, there is a contradiction between text under federal and state-
listed species and the text under RFSS. The text under federal and state-listed
species says that northern myotis and eastern pipistrelle are potentially present on
Tracts 1 and 5. The text under RFSS states that only northern myotis is potentially
present. This inconsistency should be resol ved.
Comment 109.
Section 4.3.5.2.1, Other wildlife species
This section discusses species of tribal concern. This is not a legal category. PolyMet
recommends del eting this phrase.
Comment 110.
Section 4.3.6, p. 4-521, Aquatic Species
The first sentence in the second paragraph should be revised to read Some of tThe
non-federal lands. . Not all of the non-federal lands have streams, creeks, rivers, or
lakes on them.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 28 of 70
Comment 111.
General Comment on all Land Exchange sections
The Land Exchange analysis must review FEMA floodplains. Therefore, the Land
Exchange sections should define whether the floodplains are FEMA or non-FEMA. For
exampl e, the first sentence of the second paragraph in Section 4.3.6.2.1, p. 4-522,
should be revised to read approximately 376 acres of non-FEMA floodpl ain. This
change should be reflected throughout the Land Exchange sections.
Comment 112.
Section 4.3.6.2.3, pp. 4-531 4-541, Aquatic Species
This paragraph incorrectly compares Coyote Creek with Stony River. These are not
comparabl e systems. The Stony River is a higher order, more diverse aquatic system
than the first order, headwaters Coyote Creek. It cannot be assumed that the
conclusions drawn from the studies for Stony River are applicabl e to Coyote Creek.
Comment 113.
Section 4.3.6.2.5, p. 4-541, Aquatic Species, Surface Water Features
The second paragraph is one sentence and cites MIH 14. Pol yMet recommends that
this paragraph first provide some description of the MIH 14 before making the statement
it currently contains.
Comment 114.
Section 5.2.2, p. 5-5, Water Resources
The first sentence of the second full paragraph states that the groundwater
containment system would capture at least 90 percent of seepage from the Tailings
Basin. This is incorrect. The system will capture 100% of surface seepage and
upwelled water, and at least 90% of seepage that remains as groundwater flow.
Overall, 99% of seepage from both surface and groundwater will be captured. The
sentence, as written, implies that the system will be less effective than it will be.
Similarly, PolyMet suggests revising the first sentence in the second full paragraph on
page 5-6 to read: PolyMet proposes a containment system that would capture about
99 percent of seepage from the Tailings Basin...
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 29 of 70
Comment 115.
Section 5.2.2, p. 5-7
The 4th paragraph states: With the proposed design modifications and engineering
controls, the water quality model predicts that the NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action
would not cause or increase the magnitude of an exceedance of the groundwater and
surface water quality evaluation criteria at the P90 level for any of 28 solutes at 29
groundwater or surface water evaluation locations within the Partridge River and
Embarrass River watersheds
PolyMet proposes the following language: With the proposed design modifications and
engineering controls, the water quality model predicts that the NorthMet Proj ect
Proposed Action would not cause or increase the magnitude of an exceedance of the
groundwater and surface water quality evaluation criteria at the P90 level for any of the
27 solutes and mercury (further addressed bel ow) at 29 groundwater or surface water
evaluation locations within the Partridge River and Embarrass River watersheds
Comment 116.
Section 5.2.2.1.2, p. 5-19
The 3rd paragraph states: Within the water quality modeling, estimated concentrations
for these six metals are compared to hardness-based standards at each model
evaluation location and each model time step to determine compliance with the
evaluation criteria.
PolyMet proposes the following l anguage: Within the water qual ity modeling, modeled
concentrations for these six metals are compared to hardness-based standards at each
model evaluation location and each model time step to determine compliance with the
evaluation criteria.
Comment 117.
Section 5.2.2.1.1, p. 5-20
The 4th paragraph states Methylmercury is much more of a problem than inorganic
mercury, in that it can accumul ate to concentrations of concern in the aquatic food
chain, it is more bioavailable than inorganic mercury, and it can bioaccumul ate in fish,
wildlife, and humans. The term problem suggests a conclusion, when this sentence is
actually describing concerns. PolyMet proposes the following language: Methylmercury
is more of a concern than inorganic mercury, in that it can accumulate to concentrations
of concern in the aquatic food chain, it is more bioavailabl e than inorganic mercury, and
it can bioaccumulate in fish, wildlife, and humans.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 30 of 70
Comment 118.
Section 5.2.2, p. 5-21, Mercury Evaluation Criteria
The first sentence at the top of the page reads: Research suggests that total mercury
concentrations in streams and methylmercury content in fish are roughly proportional
within individual watersheds (USGS 2010), such that, for example, a 5 percent increase
in total mercury in water would be expected to result in about a 5 percent increase in
mercury content in fish within that watershed.
This sentence should be changed to clearly state that the potential incremental change
in fish mercury concentration is an evaluation criterion and that MPCAs Mercury Risk
Estimation Method (MMREM) was used to assess the potential changes in fish mercury
concentrations in nearby lakes. The MMREM is a method that relies on empirical fish
contamination data, combined with the principl e of proportionality between mercury in
fish and atmospheric deposition (MPCA 2006, MMREM guidance document).
In addition, the following is noted with regard to the first sentence at the top of the
referenced page in the SDEIS, and to the principle of proportionality.
In the references section to the SDEIS, the USGS 2010 reference cited above l inks to
the following web page: Some Ecosystems Will Respond to Reductions in Mercury
Emissions. USGS July 29, 2010.
1
The first sentence on this webpage states: An
international team of scientists investigating mercury cycling in an experimental
watershed in Ontario, Canada, conclusivel y demonstrated at the ecosystem scale that
changes in mercury loadings are expected to result in proportional or near proportional
changes in mercury bioaccumulation in fish. PolyMet believes this conclusion of
proportionality is not applicable to this proj ect for at least three reasons.
First, the cited website summarizes the results from a study referred to as the Mercury
Experiment to Assess Atmospheric Loading in Canada and the United States
(METAALICUS) study, which was conducted on a headwater lake, not in a stream. The
METAALICUS study itself cites that runoff dominated lakes (fl ow through systems)
would not respond the same as a precipitation-dominated headwater lakes (Harris et al.,
2007). Because a stream can also be thought of as a flow through system, it will not
respond in the same way to increases or decrease in atmospheric deposition as a
precipitation-dominated headwater lake. In other words, for a run-off dominated lake
(flow-through system), the contribution of ambient (pre-existing) mercury from the
watershed to the lake is much greater than the contribution of new mercury to the water
surface. The same would be true of a stream wherein the new mercury from
atmospheric deposition would be minor compared to the contribution of ambient
mercury. In addition, Minnesotas Statewide Mercury TMDL (MPCA 2007, Section 4.1)
states that The primary source of mercury to the states water bodies is atmospheric
deposition, which is approximately uniform across the state. Mercury concentrations in
1
Available at http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/mercury_response.html .
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 31 of 70
fish, however, vary widely on both large and small scal es. . Nutrient l oadings,
hydrology, presence/absence of wetl ands and other factors contribute to different fish
mercury concentrations in lakes that are rel ativel y cl ose to each other. Therefore, using
the concept of proportionality is expected to result in an overestimate of the potential
incremental change in fish mercury concentrations due to an individual projects
mercury air emissions as the concept of proportionality does not seem to be supported
for individual streams or l akes based on the avail able data.
Second, steady state was not reached during the 3 year METAALICUS study.
Ghorpade (2010 thesis) identifies that 8 years after the study started, steady state was
not reached and the researchers are not able to predict when steady state might be
reached. Therefore, the assumption of proportionality based on the METAALICUS study
is uncertain.
Third, there are several USGS reports that indicate a relationship between filtered
methyl mercury concentration in stream water and fish mercury
concentration. However, likely because of the watershed specific factors affecting
methyl ation of mercury, there is not a USGS report, 2010 or otherwise, that identifies a
statistically significant relationship between total mercury in surface water and fish
mercury concentrations.
Comment 119.
Section 5.2.2.2.1, p. 5-23, Figure 5.2.2-6
Modeling results for location UC-1 are not presented in the SDEIS. Therefore, this
location should not be shown in Figure 5.2.2-6 as a model evaluation location.
Comment 120.
Section 5.2.2.2.1, p. 5-26
The 3rd and 4th sentences of the first paragraph should be cl arified to reflect that the
Plant Site MODFLOW model was not calibrated to baseflow in the Embarrass River, nor
was the model used to estimate baseflow.
Comment 121.
Section 5.2.2.2.1, p. 5-26
Regarding the last sentence on the page, the regional MODFLOW model calibration
was not updated to the revised baseflow estimates from XP-SWMM. The Mine Site
Water Modeling Data Package Attachment C provides: The regional model calibration
was not updated because the original calibration did not incorporate a baseflow
estimate and previous sensitivity analysis indicated that the local-scal e model results
were not sensitive to the l ateral boundary conditions that were defined by the regional
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 32 of 70
model (Barr, 2007). Therefore, the perimeter boundary conditions for the l ocal-scale
model remained unchanged.
Comment 122.
Section 5.2.2.2.1, p. 5-41, Table 5.2.2-9
The footnote on the Specific yield column of the table only applies to the surficial
deposits, not the entire column in the data table.
Comment 123.
Section 5.2.2.2.3, p. 5-47
The 1st paragraph states: GoldSim was programmed with a suite of complex
algorithms to estimate the rel ease of contaminants from mine facilities (i.e., sources)
and their transport to groundwater and surface water evaluation locations. PolyMet
suggests the following language: GoldSim was programmed with a suite of algorithms
to estimate the release of contaminants from mine facilities (i.e., sources) and their
transport to groundwater and surface water evaluation locations.
Comment 124.
Section 5.2.2.2.3, p. 5-51
The 1st paragraph states: The onset of acidic pore water is also probl ematic, as these
conditions cause the rate of sulfide oxidation to increase and the concentration of
metals to increase as precipitates dissol ve. PolyMet suggests the following revision:
The onset of acidic pore water is also of concern, as these conditions cause the rate of
sulfide oxidation to increase and the concentration of metals to increase as precipitates
dissolve.
Comment 125.
Section 5.2.2.2.3, p. 5-52, Water Quality Modeling (GoldSim), NorthMet
Waste Rock Geochemistry
The bulleted list near the middle of the page provides slightly incorrect sulfide sulfur
ranges for the waste rock cl assification criteria, as well as an incorrect reference for this
information. The sulfide sulfur cl assification criteria for the categories of waste rock
should be revised as follows:
Category 1 sulfur content l ess than or equal to 0.12%.
Category 2 sulfur content greater than 0.12% and less than or equal to 0.31%.
Category 3 sulfur content greater than 0.31% and less than or equal to 0.60%.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 33 of 70
Category 4 sulfur content greater than 0.60%.
Categories 2 and 3 are combined to produce Category 2/3 with sulfur content greater
than 0.12% and l ess than or equal to 0.60%.
This information can be found in Section 4.4.1 of the Waste Characterization Data
Package v10 (Pol yMet 2013)
Comment 126.
Section 5.2.2.2.3, pp. 5-53 5-54, Water Quality Modeling (GoldSim),
NorthMet Waste Rock Geochemistry, Constituent Release from Waste
Rock
The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 5-53 states that the GoldSim model
simulates constituent release from waste rock based on assumptions that either
extrapol ate from conditions observed under field-scale weathering of similar rock
(Category 1 waste rock) or in laboratory tests (Category 2, 3, and 4 waste rock, and
ore). This should be revised to indicate that constituent release for all categories of
rock is based on data from laboratory tests. Constituent release rates for all categories
of rock are estimated by applying a scaling factor to l ab rates to account for likely
differences between field and lab conditions. The scal ing approach differs between
Category 1 and the other categories of rock, but release rates for all categories of rock
are based on laboratory data.
The first sentence on page 5-54 states that for Category 1 rock, instead of using lab
tests, the rate of oxidation and constituent release was estimated from studies of
seepage rel ease measured in Dunka Mine rock. .. PolyMet suggests revising the first
sentence to read instead of using lab tests, the rate of oxidation and constituent
rel ease in the field was estimated from lab release rates that were scaled using the
results of studies of seepage release measured in Dunka Mine rock .
Comment 127.
Section 5.2.2.3.1, p. 5-80, Plant Site
The second paragraph states: The 80 percent rate is used because seepage from the
south side of Tailings Basin is likely higher than the fl ow contribution to Second Creek
that would occur from the Basin footprint for natural ground conditions (i.e., if the
Tailings Basin were not present). This statement is not correct. The 80% is to limit the
proj ect impact on flow to +/- 20% of existing conditions, as is recommended by MDNR
on Page 5-14.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 34 of 70
Comment 128.
PolyMet suggests revising the third full paragraph as follows: WWTP effluent that
would be used remaining after flow augmentation to Second Creek would be
discharged to the three Embarrass River tributaries (Unnamed, Trimble, and Mud Lake
creeks), as partial or complete fulfillment of required augmentation to maintain
downstream hydrology and wetl and function in Second Creek and the three
Embarrass River tributaries (Barr 2013a). Pumping from Colby Lake would be
used to meet any remaining augmentation requirement.
Comment 129.
The second paragraph states: Tailings seepage bypassing the containment system
(approximately 19.4 gpm) would continue . On page 5-8 (Section 5.2.2) and in Table
5.2.2-36, the flow bypassing the containment system is said to be about 21 gpm.
PolyMet recommends revising for consistency.
Comment 130.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-.97, Table 5.2.2-19 (Row: Category 4 Stockpile)
The active source period for the Category 4 Stockpile is incorrect. The stockpil e will be
removed during the development of the Central Pit and will be entirely removed by the
end of Mine Year 11.
Comment 131.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-102
The last full paragraph should acknowl edge that the pH in the East Pit backfill will be
monitored and adjusted by the addition of alkaline water from the WWTF as backfilling
progresses in order to maintain circum-neutral conditions in the backfill pore water.
Comment 132.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-104, West Pit
The SDEIS states: The quality of this aquifer infl ow would reflect the quality of the pit
lake water, which would gradually improve over time due to cycling through the WWTF.
However, the West Pit water will not be cycl ed through the WWTF during reclamation.
PolyMet suggest revising the text to: The quality of this aquifer inflow would refl ect the
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 35 of 70
quality of the pit lake water, which would gradually improve over time due to the
effectiveness of the reclamation activities at the site.
Comment 133.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-105, Groundwater Transport and Evaluation
Locations
The SDEIS states: Cobalt was generally used to illustrate groundwater transport at the
Mine Site because it is not attenuated and would enter the surficial flowpaths at
concentrations higher than baseline groundwater. This statement is misleading.
PolyMet suggests rewording to the following: Cobalt was generally used to illustrate
groundwater transport at the Mine Site because the model did not account for
attenuation, and would enter the surficial flowpaths at concentrations higher than
baseline groundwater.
Comment 134.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-121
The first paragraph incorrectly states that flow augmentation must be at least 145 or 180
gpm, which is 80% of capture fl ow rate of the current south-side seepage. Tabl e 5.2.2-
40 shows 400 gpm, which is the correct rate for augmentation (see The Water Modeling
Data Package Volume 2 Plant Site v9).
The same error is made in the last paragraph on Page 5-153 (Section 5.2.2.3.2).
Comment 135.
Section 5.2.2.3.2 p. 5-123, Category 1 Stockpile Seepage
The first paragraph of this section only discusses quantities of seepage during cl osure
and not operations. The paragraph bel ow could be added to discuss these aspects
during operation:
During operations, the Category 1 Stockpil e would be uncovered. Infiltration would
percolate to the bottom of the stockpil e and be collected by the surrounding
groundwater containment system. As the stockpile footprint is expanded, the total
seepage during operations will increase up to a maximum annual flow of between 290
gpm and 440 gpm. Most of this seepage would be collected and sent to the WWTF for
treatment; an estimated peak fl ow of 20 gpm to 30 gpm would pass below the
containment system and be drawn by gravity into the dewatered West Pit.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 36 of 70
Comment 136.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-126, Table 5.2.2-28
This table is consistent with what was provided in the AWMP, but the corresponding text
on Page 5-125 leaves the inaccurate impression that the effluent targets were what was
modeled as effluent concentrations. The text should be modified to match the tabl e.
Comment 137.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-127, Table 5.2.2-29
The use of the term non-contact stormwater in this table and elsewhere in the text is
somewhat confusing, as it seems to imply that this is water being managed by PolyMet.
PolyMet recommends using the more appropriate term unimpacted watershed runoff.
Comment 138.
Section 5.2.2.3.2, p. 5-143
The first paragraph on this page should acknowledge that there is a low probability for
exceedances caused by the project.
Comment 139.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-163, Figure 5.2.2-40
Unnamed Creek should be included in the discharge l ocations for the WWTP effluent.
SD006 is the l ocation for Unnamed Creek, not Second Creek. The tabl e organization
contradicts language found in the last paragraph of page 5-177, which states
augmentation flow to Unnamed Creek would be via a single discharge near the current
SD006 discharge.
Comment 140.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-165, Groundwater Transport and Evaluation
Locations
The text states: The rate at which contaminants would move through the groundwater
would be the same as the groundwater seepage velocity downgradient of the
containment system for all but four constituents (arsenic, antimony, copper, and nickel).
(See Comment p.5-105). Because no attenuation values are used for the constituents
other than arsenic, antimony, copper, and nickel the modeled rate of groundwater
transport will be faster than the actual rate of transport in the ground. PolyMet
recommends noting this fact in the text.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 37 of 70
Comment 141.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-165
The last sentence of the l ast paragraph states: Transport of other non-attenuated
solutes should be similar to l ead, but the change in concentrations is not al ways as
visually noticeable as it is for l ead. This statement is misleading. Lead is the only solute
of interest where l oading to the environment is predicted to increase as a result of the
proj ect, which is why it is the only solute to show a visible concentration front moving
through groundwater down gradient of the tailings basin. Thus, other solutes do not
show a similar behavior as lead.
Comment 142.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-182
The second to last paragraph states: the concentrations of these metals in the
WWTP effluent would be significantly higher than the concentrations in the current
Tailings Basin seepage This sentence should be revised to use the term modeled
concentrations The modeled effluent concentrations from the WWTP are higher than
the values reported in pilot testing of the proposed treatment systems for the WWTP,
but were selected to be near, and slightly bel ow, the potential effluent limit for the
modeled constituents to provide a conservative assessment of potential consequences
rel ated to downstream water quality.
PolyMet also recommends making this adjustment in Table 5.2.2-47 on page 5-
188.
Comment 143.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-189
The second to last paragraph states: the average aluminum concentration in the
Comment 144.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, p. 5-189
The first paragraph following the bulleted list states: This dilution effect is demonstrated
by the increase in measured aluminum concentrations from upstream tributary locations
(UC-1, TC-1, and MLC-3) to downstream locations (PM-11, PM-19, and MLC-2), where
modeled conditions. The use of the term measured implies reference to actual,
observed data, but stating that upstream locations would average less than implies
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 38 of 70
or observed.
Comment 145.
Section 5.2.2.3.3, pp. 5-19 and 5-191
There appears to be inconsistency in the chromium standard that is used in this
chapter. The referenced pages state: Among the six constituents with hardness-based
evaluation criteria (cadmium, chromium (III), copper, lead, nickel, and zinc), and
Tabl e 5.2.2-4 lists chromium (III), as the evaluation criteria with a hardness based
standard. However, later in the document, the standard for chromium (VI) is used in
Tabl es 5.2.2-30 and 5.2.2-42 for example. Please cl arify which standard was used for
chromium, and why.
Comment 146.
Section 5.2.2.3.4, p. 5-202, Table 5.2.2-49
The number of pit lakes should be 16, not 21 as reported in this tabl e.
Comment 147.
Section 5.2.2.3.4, p. 5-202
The third paragraph states precipitation, which averages about 9.8 ng/L based on
average volume-weighted mercury in precipitation as measured at the Marcell
Experimental Forest deposition site in Itasca County (NADP 2013). Barrs analysis,
consistent with the tabl e on the next page, is based on 13 ng/L deposition based on the
Fernberg Road site. PolyMet recommends citing the Fernberg Road concentration of
13.2 ng/L instead of the Marcell concentration of 9.8 ng/L.
This comment also applies to the SDEISs cumulative impact discussion in the
first paragraph of p. 6-31 and second paragraph of p. 6-33 (Section 6.2.3.3.4).
Comment 148.
Section 5.2.2.3.4, pp. 5-204 and 5-207
The second full paragraph on page 5-204 states: The NorthMet Proj ect Proposed
Action is predicted to result in a net decrease in mercury-loading to the Partridge River
from 24.2 to 23.0 grams per year. The basis for these numbers is not indicated and not
consistent with data provided by Barr 2012b. The loading memo indicated a net
decrease from 12.1 to 10.8 grams per year.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 39 of 70
Similarly, the first paragraph on page 5-207 states: The NorthMet Project Proposed
Action is predicted to result in a net increase in mercury l oading to the Embarrass River
of up to 0.6 grams per year (from 22.3 to 22.9 grams per year), about a 3 percent
increase. The l oading memo indicated a net increase from 18.5 to 19.1 grams per
year.
These same comments also apply to pages 6-31 and 6-34 discussing cumulative
impacts (Section 6.2.3.3.4).
Comment 149.
Section 5.2.2.3.4, p. 5-207
The second bullet, when explaining the predicted increase in mercury loading to the
Embarrass River, states: Tailings Basin containment system, which would collect
seepage from the Tailings Basin, with an estimated mercury concentration of 1.1 ng/L,
and route it to the WWTP, which would discharge with an assumed mercury
concentration of 1.3 ng/L, for a net increase of 0.2 ng/L of mercury as a result of
wastewater treatment, which is a conservative assumption. PolyMet suggests
expl aining that the reason this is conservative is because the WWTP would reduce
mercury concentrations, and any additional mercury removal from installing a
greensand filter, are not accounted for.
Comment 150.
Section 5.2.2.3.4, p. 5-210, Mercury Summary
The SDEIS states: Overall, mercury loadings are predicted to increase slightly in the
Embarrass River (3 percent) as a result of the NorthMet Project Proposed Action, but
would be offset by a larger decrease (5 percent) in the Partridge River, resulting in a net
decrease in overall mercury l oadings (0.6 grams per year) to the St. Louis River as a
result of the NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action. The basis for these percentages is not
indicated and not consistent with data provided (Barr, 2012b). According to the loading
memo analysis, the increase at the Embarrass River would be 0.2% and the decrease
at the Partridge would be 0.9%.
This comment also applies to page 6-18 in Section 6.2.3.3.4.
Comment 151.
Section 5.2.2.3.5, p. 5-210, Proposed and Recommended Mitigation
Measures
The second bullet under NorthMet Project Proposed Action Design Changes states:
The location of the Category 4 Stockpile was shifted such that seepage would be
captured in the Central Pit and East Pit and would minimize effects on surficial
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 40 of 70
groundwater. The terminology and locations used here are confusing. PolyMet
suggests the following instead: The location of the Category 4 Stockpil e was shifted
such that water contacting the stockpile would be captured in the East Pit and would
minimize effects on surficial groundwater.
It is important to note that the Central Pit will not exist until after the Category 4
Stockpile has been decommissioned and the Category 4 waste rock has been relocated
to the East Pit for subaqueous disposal. The most apparent benefit of relocating the
Category 4 Stockpile as part of the Proposed Action Design Changes is that by locating
the stockpile over an area that will be subsequently engulfed by the Central Pit, the
overall area of surface disturbance (including vegetation, wetlands, etc) of the NorthMet
proj ect will be reduced.
Comment 152.
Measures
The sixth bullet states: Refined Hydrometallurgical Flowsheet A singl e (rather two)
autocl ave would be fed with nickel concentrate and produce copper concentrate
produced with beneficiation refinements. The production of hydrometallurgical residue
would be cut approximately in half with this design change. Residual copper would be
recovered by cementation (contacting the leach solution with copper concentrate) to
further upgrade the copper concentrate and to further reduce the production of
hydrometallurgical residue. To be more precise, the last phrase should be changed to:
, and to potentially further reduce the production of hydrometallurgical residue.
Comment 153.
Section 5.2.2.3.5, p. 5-211
The first bullet discusses subaqueous disposal of reactive waste rock, but it does not
mention subaqueous disposal of some of the Category 1 waste rock. Although Category
1 waste rock is considered the least reactive waste rock, it should still be mentioned
here.
Comment 154.
Section 5.2.2.3.5, p. 5-211
The fourth bullet discusses the use of side dump cars to haul ore and states: Ore
Transport PolyMet proposes to use side-dump rail ore cars that would minimize ore
spillage (PolyMet 2013c). Side dump rail cars were proposed as part of the DEIS, as
documented in DEIS Section 3.1.3; therefore, this is not a design change and should
not be included in this section.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 41 of 70
Comment 155.
Section 5.2.2.3.5, p. 5-211
The l ast bullet discusses the WWTP and states: A WWTP would be added at the Plant
Site to treat Tailing Basin seepage through operations. Treatment at the WWTP will not
end at the end of operations. The WWTP will actually treat this water through operations
and cl osure.
Comment 156.
Section 5.2.2.3.5, p. 5-212, Tailings Basin Seepage Groundwater
Containment System
The seventh bullet discusses the tailings basin containment system and refers to it as
being on the western, northern, and northeastern sides of the existing LTVSMC
Tailings Basin. The containment system is not located al ong the northeastern side of
the tailings basin; it is located on the western and northern sides of the tailings basin, as
described appropriately on SDEIS Page 3-116 (under Engineering Water Controls).
Comment 157.
Measures
The first bullet, as part of a tabul ation of fixed engineering controls, states: Process
water management, including pipes, pumps, and process water ponds that would be
used to separate and control stormwater and process waters. This statement does not
account for the fact that the process water ponds are lined. Accordingly, PolyMet
recommends inserting lined before process water ponds.
Comment 158.
Section 5.2.2.3.6, p. 5-218, Table 5.2.2-53, Stormwater Summary
The flow monitoring for stormwater has footnotes stating that flows would be monitored
continuously. There are no pumps associated with this infrastructure, so continuous flow
monitoring is not proposed for stormwater flows. Fl ows are proposed to be monitored on
a monthly basis as specified in the Water Management Pl an Mine (v2) Section 5.2.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 42 of 70
Comment 159.
Section 5.2.2.3.6, p. 5-219, Table 5.2.2-53, Surface Water, Colby Lake and
Whitewater Reservoir
This tabl e includes water level monitoring for Whitewater Reservoir. This was not
included in the Water Management Plan Mine and has never been discussed with the
agencies.
Comment 160.
Section 5.2.3.1.2, p. 5-227, Potential Indirect Wetland Effects Resulting
from Changes in Hydrology Due to Drawdown at the Mine Site
The fourth bulleted item is misl eading and should be clarified by changing the text in
parentheses to say within Area 1.
Comment 161.
Section 5.2.3.1.2, p. 5-227
The first paragraph states The anal og approach was based on similar mine settings
(e.g., within the gl acial till region). PolyMet proposes the following revision: The analog
approach used observations of groundwater response adjacent to iron range mines
characterized by moderate to high hydraulic conductivity gl acial and fluvial deposits
overlying lower hydraulic conductivity bedrock.
Comment 162.
Section 5.2.3.2.2, p. 5-277
The third sentence of the first full paragraph should be clarified by identifying the source
and rationale behind using 675 square meters of watershed area per meter of track in
the contributing watershed as the method for identifying potentially impacted wetl ands.
Comment 163.
Section 5.2.3.3.2 p.3-313, Wetland Mitigation
In the second sentence of the third paragraph, it is an overstatement to suggest that
wetlands represent pre-European settlement conditions, as the area was likel y logged
several times since settlement.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 43 of 70
Comment 164.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-312
The second bullet should read: In-kind mitigation means the replacement of the
impacted aquatic site with the same wetl and plant community type. See USACE, 2009,
II.D.3.
Comment 165.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-312
The third bullet should read: Out-of-kind mitigation means the replacement of an
impacted aquatic site with a different wetl and plant community type. See USACE,
2009, II.D.3.
Comment 166.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-313
In the second paragraph, the rule citation is incorrect as is the interpretation of the rule.
The second paragraph should read: The Federal Mitigation Rule also states that
difficult-to-replace aquatic resources include bogs (33 CFR 332.3(e)(3) and Preamble,
page 19633). The majority of the wetl ands that would be affected by the NorthMet
Project Proposed Action would be difficult-to-replace (coniferous bog and open bog)
(USACE 2013). The Federal Mitigation Rule includes a provision for a case-by-case
determination of mitigation ratios higher than the minimum 1:1 where necessary to
account for the difficulty of restoring or establishing the desired aquatic resource type
and functions.
Comment 167.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-313
The third sentence of the third paragraph is not supported by the data collected for the
proj ect. None of the wetlands proposed to be affected by the project were rated as
having exceptional vegetative diversity/integrity ratings.
Comment 168.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-313
The second to l ast sentence in the fourth paragraph should read: For effects on
wetlands with rare or exceptional functions or difficult-to-repl ace bogs, the USACE may
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 44 of 70
require additional compensation in accordance with District Policy and the Federal
Mitigation Rule.
Comment 169.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-313
The first sentence of the second to last paragraph should read: If none of these
incentives are met, the minimum mitigation ratio required is 1.5:1.
Comment 170.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-314
The third paragraph states that base compensation ratios could be increased to 2:1.
There is not rational e or reference provided for this statement, which is not specifically
stated in the District Policy or Federal Mitigation Rul e.
The same comment applies to page 5-316 and page 5-321.
Comment 171.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-314
In the fourth paragraph, it is stated that Minnesota Rules 8420.0552 requires financial
assurances to ensure successful wetland replacement. This provision only applies to
wetland replacement that is not in advance. In addition, the local government unit may
waive this requirement if it determines the financial assurance is not necessary to
ensure wetl and replacement.
Comment 172.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-315
The first paragraph states that because the compensatory wetland mitigation is planned
in advance, that financial assurance would not be required under Section 404. This may
not be true because the purpose is to ensure successful completion of the mitigation,
and it may not be possible to determine success within one year of wetland mitigation
construction.
Comment 173.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-315, Table 5.2.3-17
The 6 rows beginning with <50%... and <80%... are not relevant to the PolyMet
proj ect and could be removed in order to maintain clarity.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 45 of 70
Comment 174.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-316
The first paragraph after the list should read: The financial assurance requirements
would be part of the WCA permitting process for the NorthMet Project Proposed Action.
Wetland repl acement for the NorthMet Project Proposed Action is expected to be
approved and constructed in advance of any authorized wetland effects (under the
WCA approval ) and, therefore, would not require financial assurance.
Comment 175.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-319
No reference is provided for the statements made in the fourth paragraph. Justification
for why the wetland mitigation opportunities discussed in this paragraph were
determined to not be practicable was provided in Wetl ands Mitigation Plan Supplement
Wetl and Mitigation Pl anning and Siting Documentation, RS20T Draft-04, PolyMet,
June 1, 2008. One additional difficulty with such wetland mitigation opportunities that
was not discussed in the reference provided is the presence of severed mineral rights
on many of those lands. In order to place restrictions on the l and, as required for
wetland mitigation, those mineral rights would need to be controlled.
Comment 176.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-321
In the last paragraph, the third sentence should read: The mitigation would be
considered in advance if the initial phases of restoration on all of the proposed off-site
wetland mitigation sites would be completed at least one full growing season in advance
of the authorized wetland effects provided initial performance standards are met for
which the mitigation would compensate. Also, in the last paragraph, 939.4 acres is
stated with no reference. That number should be referenced to Tables 5.2.3-19 and
5.2.3-20 of the 404 permit application.
Comment 177.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-322
In the fifth paragraph, the first sentence should read: The minimum replacement ratio
that would be allowed by the USACE is 1:1 (USACE, 2009) for those wetl ands that
would be replaced with the same wetland type, and at least one full growing season in
advance of the authorized wetland effects provided initial performance standards are
met; however, base compensation ratios could be increased to 2:1 (add reference) for
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 46 of 70
effects on wetlands with rare or exceptional functions or difficult-to-repl ace bog
wetlands.
The second to l ast sentence should read: Compensation proposed at the Aitkin Site
would be expected to meet in-kind compensation, resulting in a compensation ratio for
effects to wetlands with rare or exceptional functions or difficult-to-repl ace bogs of
1.75:1, and if in advance, the ratio would be reduced to 1.5:1.
Comment 178.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-322
The first sentence in the last paragraph (before the bullet), should read: Under the
Minnesota WCA, the replacement ratio that would likely be allowed is 1.5:1, because
the Aitkin Site wetlands are out of the NorthMet Project area watershed (see Tabl es
5.2.3-18 and 5.2.3-20).
Comment 179.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-324
The first sentence in the second paragraph should read: The minimum replacement
ratio that would be allowed by the USACE is 1:1 (USACE, 2009) for those wetl ands that
would be replaced with the same wetland type, and at least one full growing season in
advance of the authorized wetland effects provided initial performance standards are
met; however, base compensation ratios could be increased to 2:1 (add reference) for
effects on wetlands with rare or exceptional functions or difficult-to-repl ace bog
wetlands.
The second to l ast sentence in the second paragraph should read: Compensation
proposed at the Hinckley Site would be expected to meet the in-kind incentive, resulting
in a compensation ratio for effects to wetlands with rare or exceptional functions or
difficult-to-replace bogs of 1.75:1, and if in-advance, the ratio would be reduced to
1.5:1.
Comment 180.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-324
The first sentence in the third paragraph should read: Under the Minnesota WCA, the
repl acement ratio that would likely be allowed is 1.5:1, because the Hinckl ey Site
wetlands are out of the NorthMet Proj ect area watershed (see Tabl es 5.2.3-18 and
5.2.3-20).
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 47 of 70
Comment 181.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-325
The first sentence in the l ast paragraph should read: The minimum replacement ratio
that would be allowed by the USACE is 1:1 for those wetlands that are repl aced with
either the same wetl and type, or at least one full growing season in advance of the
authorized wetland effects provided initial performance standards are met; however
base compensation ratios could be increased to 2:1 for effects on wetl ands with rare or
exceptional functions or difficult-to-repl ace bog wetlands.
The last full sentence on the page should read: Compensation proposed for the Zim
Site would be expected to meet both in-kind and in-place incentives, thereby reducing
the compensation ratio for effects on wetl ands with rare or exceptional functions or
difficult-to-replace bogs from 2:1 to 1.5:1.
Comment 182.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-325
The first sentence on the page (continuing from the previous page) should read: For
low- to moderate-quality wetlands, the recommended base ratio of 1.5:1 would be
reduced to 1.25:1 for in place and could be reduced to 1:1 if also either in-advance or
in-kind.
Comment 183.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-325
The section on the Zim Site does not include any description of restoration methods and
sequencing, which is included in the descriptions for the Aitkin and Hinckley sites. See
Zim Sod Wetl and Mitigation Site Wetland Mitigation Plan (PolyMet, November 2011)
for an appropriate description.
Comment 184.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-327, Table 5.2.3-18
A footnote should be added to the table describing why there is 101.8 acres of on-site
wetland mitigation shown in the second to l ast column but no associated wetl and credits
in the l ast column. Similarl y, the same acreage is shown in the On-Site (acres)
column, but no associated credits are shown in the Total Credits column.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 48 of 70
Comment 185.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-333
The last paragraph states, Approximately 72 percent of credits proposed would be
located outside of the watershed. This statement is misleading because all of the
proposed credits are above the minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. In fact, 48 percent of
the proposed impacts are proposed to be replaced in-kind, in-pl ace, and ahead of time.
If the on-site wetland mitigation were factored in, approximatel y 56 percent of the
wetland impacts would be replaced within the watershed.
Comment 186.
Section 5.2.3.3.2, p. 5-333
The last paragraph states that the Federal Mitigation Rule places additional emphasis
on replacing coastal wetland losses within a coastal watershed. However, the Rule
simply states that unavoidable wetland impacts within a coastal watershed should be
repl aced within a coastal watershed, where practicable. The Federal Mitigation Rule
states that when sufficient bank credits are not available, permittee-responsible
mitigation is the only option. It further states that, where practicable and l ikely to be
successful and sustainable, permittee-responsible mitigation should be determined
using the principles of a watershed approach (33 CFR 332.3 (b)(4)), which should be
used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Therefore, the approach for
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts within coastal watersheds
appears to match the approach for wetland impacts in other watersheds.
Comment 187.
Section 5.2.3.3.3, p.5-334, Mitigation Summary
The numbers in the second sentence of the second paragraph are inaccurate. In this
sentence, 7,350.7 acres should be 1,771.5 acres (based on Table 5.2.3-3; excluding the
no effect acres) and 6,498.1 acres should be 587.1 acres (based on Table 5.2.3-4;
excluding the no effect acres).
Comment 188.
Section 5.2.3.3.4, p. 5-337
In the third paragraph, the third sentence should read: At The Mine Site, an additional
16 monitoring locations are proposed and are planned within all wetl ands that have
received effect factor ratings of 3, 4, or 5 near the North Met Project area features and
in several wetland with effect factor ratings of 1 or 2 located throughout the areas of
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 49 of 70
potential indirect wetland impacts. This is consistent with the information provided on
page 5-336, second paragraph of the SDEIS.
Comment 189.
Section 5.2.4.1, p. 5-340
The last sentence of the first full paragraph states: Indirect effects were estimated by
comparing the proximity of the NorthMet Proj ect area infrastructure footprints to existing
natural features. Polymet suggests revising the text to read:
Vegetation communities can be affected by more than one of these types of indirect
effects. For this reason, indirect effects on vegetation cannot be precisely quantified, as
this would result in double-counting of vegetation community acreage where multiple
indirect effects are manifested. The relative magnitude of indirect effects on vegetation
communities can, however, be estimated. Typically, indirect effects are more l ikely to
occur and/or are more likely to be evident in vegetation communities that are cl oser to
Project components and other infrastructure (e.g., roads). Indirect effects tend to
diminish with increasing distance from Project components and other infrastructure.
Comment 190.
Section 5.2.4.2.1, pp. 5-341 5-342, Culturally Important Plants
In the discussion of the NorthMet Projects effects on culturally important plants, the
SDEIS discusses wild rice but notes that that a distinct l ist of plant species important to
the Bands is not availabl e. The Bands were cooperating agencies in preparation of the
SDEIS, and accordingly had every opportunity to provide a distinct plant species list. If
such a list is not avail able, PolyMet recommends stating that the Bands have not
identified culturally important plants not already identified and discussed in the SDEIS.
Comment 191.
Section 5.2.4.1, pp. 5-345 5-351, Threatened and Endangered Plant
Species
The text describes indirect effects as a certainty, when there is no basis for determining
the likelihood and/or magnitude of indirect effects. Where the text makes statements
such as [Species name] may be indirectly affected by changes in hydrology, the word
potentially should be inserted (may potentially be indirectly affected ) to more
accurately refl ect the uncertainty over the likelihood and/or magnitude of indirect effects.
The relative magnitude of indirect effects on ETSC or RFSS species would vary
between ETSC/RFSS species and between locations of individuals or populations of a
given ETSC or RFSS species. The potential for indirect effects on ETSC or RFSs
species cannot be quantified, but can be estimated. Typically, indirect effects are more
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 50 of 70
likely to occur in ETSC or RFSS popul ations that are closer to Proj ect components and
other infrastructure (e.g., roads). Indirect effects on ETSC or RFSS species tend to
diminish with increasing distance from Project components and other infrastructure.
Comment 192.
Section 5.2.4.2.1, p. 5-348
The eighth sentence of the second paragraph states: Disturbance-tolerant species
may, in some cases, actually be disturbance-dependent. PolyMet recommends
providing a citation for this claim or removing the sentence.
Comment 193.
Section 5.2.4.2.4, p. 5-359, Mine Site Mitigation Measures
The last sentence makes an assumption about how impacts to a state-listed species
could be mitigated through the purchase of an unprotected site. PolyMet recommends
noting in this section that appropriate, acceptable mitigation will be determined by the
MDNR.
Comment 194.
Section 5.3.4.2.4, p. 5-616
The last sentence of the second paragraph assumes that the non-federal lands rank
lower for biodiversity because no studies have been conducted to designate Sites of
Biodiversity Significance and native vegetation communities. This is specul ative and
inconsistent with the data that demonstrate similarities in the cover types between the
federal and non-federal lands. On that basis, it is reasonable to assume that, once the
non-federal lands are surveyed, Sites of Biodiversity Significance will be designated,
and native pl ant communities will be mapped.
Comment 195.
In the second sentence of the eighth paragraph, it is misl eading to state that an
average of 2,066 miles per day of vehicular traffic would contribute to potential lynx
impacts. The maj ority of those miles would be travel ed within the pit/mine site and not
along outside roads where lynx encounters would be far more likely.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 51 of 70
Comment 196.
Section 5.2.5.2.3, p. 5-374, Wetlands
The fourth paragraph inaccurately states: This would not replace in-kind the wetland
habitat affected (primarily coniferous bog and shrub/conifer swamp). This issue is
addressed in Comments 164 to 187 above.
Comment 197.
Section 5.2.5.2.3, p. 5-374, Wildlife Corridors
Second paragraph: The Transportation and Utility Corridor runs both parallel and
perpendicular to the identified wildlife travel corridors.
Comment 198.
Section 5.2.6.2.2, p. 5-392
The last paragraph states: Effects on aquatic biota from the lead exceedance due to
changes in hardness are not well understood, but would likely increase the potential to
adversely affect aquatic life. This statement does not acknowl edge that the modeling
results predict increased potential for a l ead exceedance (due to the use of a
probabil istic model); rather, the statement incorrectly implies that there will inevitably be
a lead exceedance.
Comment 199.
Section 5.3.3, p. 5-595, Wetlands
In the second paragraph, it should be noted that most of the floodplain on the federal
land is outside of the Proj ect Area.
Comment 200.
Section 5.3.3.1.1, p. 5-598, Table 5.3.3-4, Wetlands and Floodplains
The right-most table column heading should be renamed Non-FEMA regulated
floodpl ains. A column should be added for FEMA-regul ated fl oodplains. This
comment also pertains to Tabl e 5.3.3-7.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 52 of 70
Comment 201.
Section 5.3.3.1.1, p. 5-599, Table 5.3.3-5
The subtotal for open bog on non-federal lands is not accurate. The number should be
7.1 acres.
Comment 202.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-402, Proposed Action Emissions
The second sentence of the third paragraph lists lean ore as a handled material.
However, lean ore has been eliminated from the Mine Plan.
Comment 203.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-402, Proposed Action Emissions
The last sentence of the third paragraph refers to the proposed monitors at the Mine
Site as ambient air quality monitors. This may be confusing because they are not
intended to assess compliance with NAAQS/MAAQS, but to provide information for
fugitive dust control. PolyMet suggests using PM
10
monitors instead.
Comment 204.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-403, Table 5.2.7-4, Plant Site Emissions
The Plant site emission totals include some double counting for natural gas and
propane combustion emissions and do not refl ect potential to emit or estimated actual
emissions. The column heading (and text) using Projected Controlled Emissions may
be confusing. PolyMet recommends using standard air permitting nomenclature:
potential, actual, allowable, etc.
Comment 205.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-404, Table 5.2.7-6, Plant Site and Mine Site
Emissions
Plant site emissions are estimated actuals. The controlled potential would be more
appropriate to compare to maj or source level. The Mine Site max singl e HAP emissions
in table are for Mn. Max Plant + max Mine Site single HAP emissions are for Ni at 5 tpy.
PolyMet suggests removing Prevention of Significant Deterioration-regul ated from
table titl e. Major source determination under NEAHAPS includes fugitive sources; PSD
for non-listed source category does not.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 53 of 70
Comment 206.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-405, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The first two sentences of the first paragraph indicate that emissions in Table 5.2.7-7
are potential emissions. However, they are not for the Pl ant Site as these totals refl ect
some double counting for natural gas and propane combustion emissions (see
Comment 204 above). Although the SDEIS distinguishes between potential and
maximum potential emissions, it is not clear what the difference is. PolyMet suggests
providing an expl anation of the use of short tons in Table 5.2.7-7 and metric tons in
Tabl e 5.2.7-8.
Comment 207.
Section 5.2.7.1.3, p. 5-405, Table 5.2.7-7, Plant Site Emissions
Plant site emissions are not PTE or estimated actual emissions or proposed limited
emissions.
Comment 208.
Section 5.2.7.1.4, p. 5-407, NAAQS, MAAQS and Class II Increment
Modeling
The bulleted items require revision. The Northshore Mine does not consume increment.
It was included in the increment analysis in that it was considered and eliminated as an
increment consuming source (constructed before applicabl e baseline dates).
The same comment applies to the text on page 5-410.
Comment 209.
Section 5.2.7.2.1, p. 5-410, Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class
II Increment Analysis
In the second to last sentence, Polymet suggest cl arifying that the other sources were
also model ed at maximum emission rates to show the modeling essentially constituted
worst case scenario.
Comment 210.
Section 5.2.7.2.1, p. 5-411, Mine Site Receptors Analysis
The text implies that mobiles sources were modeled for Class II criteria pollutant
modeling. However, they were not (per EPA guidance and the approved modeling
protocol). They were included in AERA and Class I modeling.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 54 of 70
Comment 211.
Section 5.2.7.2.1, p. 5-411, Plant Site Receptors Analysis
In the third sentence of the first paragraph, the increment result of 18 g/m^3 is for the
cumulative analysis. The accurate result is 27 g/m^3, as shown in table 5.2.7-11.
Comment 212.
Section 5.2.7.2.1, p. 5-412, Mine Site
The first sentence of the second paragraph is incorrect. All sources were modeled
together.
Comment 213.
Section 5.2.7.2.1, p. 5-412, NAAQS and MAAQS Impact Analysis
The second sentence in the first paragraph states that modeling analysis included
the entire NorthMet Project area and nearby sources. The Plant Site results with
nearby sources are in Chapter 6.
Comment 214.
Section 5.2.7.2.2, p. 5-414, Table 5.2.7-13, Isle Royale 24-hour SO
2
result
The figures for 2002 should be 0.001 and max 0.001.
Comment 215.
Section 5.2.7.2.3, p. 5-426, Table 5.2.7-22
Inhalation only acute and chronic non-cancer HI should be displayed with 1
significant figure i.e. 1 not 1.0.
Comment 216.
Section 5.2.7.2.4, p. 5-430, NorthMet Proposed Action and Climate
Change
In the second paragraph, PolyMet suggests noting that if metals are obtained from
proj ects elsewhere, the projects are likely to be subject to much less overall
environmental regul ation.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 55 of 70
Comment 217.
Section 5.2.7.2.5, p. 5-431, Mercury Deposition Impact Analysis
In the last paragraph, the incremental risk at Wynne Lake for a recreational fisher
should be as 0.07 in Pl ant Site AERA report, not 0.08.
Comment 218.
Section 5.2.7.3, p. 5-421, Mine Site Air Emission Risk Analysis
The third sentence of the first paragraph inaccurately states that H
2
SO
4
was screened
out. The estimated risk was added to the other chemicals evaluated to obtain the total.
Comment 219.
Section 5.2.7.3, p. 5-423, Mine Site Air Emission Risk Analysis
The third sentence of the last paragraph lists NO
2
from natural gas combustion as an
acute risk driver. However, natural gas is not avail able at the Mine Site. Rather, NO
2
is
from diesel fuel combustion.
Comment 220.
Section 5.2.7.3, p. 5-424, Plant Site Air Emission Risk Analysis
The sixth sentence of the first paragraph inaccurately states that H
2
SO
4
was screened
out. The estimated risk was added to the other chemicals evaluated to obtain the total.
Comment 221.
Section 5.2.7.3, p. 5-425, Plant Site Air Emission Risk Analysis
The second sentence of the third paragraph inaccurately states that the risk
assessment was refined by considering where maximum concentrations occur in space.
The results were acceptabl e without this refinement.
This comment also applies to text on page 5-426.
Comment 222.
Section 5.2.7.2.4, p.5-427, Greenhouse Gases Impact Analysis
The first paragraph in this section states: The science, policy, and regul atory
frameworks regarding GHGs are continually evolving and are often subject to differing
interpretation. For the purposes of the SDEIS, the information presented bel ow is
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 56 of 70
intended to provide the current understanding through June 15, 2012 with subsequent
information regarding climate change updated in the FEIS.
PolyMet supports the SDEISs stated intent to supplement the GHG analysis with recent
analysis and devel opments on the topic of climate change and greenhouse
gases. PolyMet bel ieves two recent devel opments in particular warrant
acknowledgement in the FEIS. The first is President Obamas directive to the EPA l ast
summer to promulgate carbon pollution New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for existing electric utility generating units by June of this year, adopt a final standard by
June 2015 and require state implementation plans be submitted by June 2016. The
second is the 2013 Minnesota law that will require Minnesota Power to generate at l east
1.5% of its electricity through solar by 2020. These initiatives are expected to decrease
the amount of indirect, power-production-related greenhouse gas emissions by the
utilities that are expected to supply electricity to the NorthMet Project.
Comment 223.
Section 5.2.7.4, p. 5-432, Mitigation Measures
The first sentence of the first paragraph says: If, during permitting, it is determined that
mitigation measures are necessary, the measures described in this section could be
considered. However, most of the measures described are already an integral part of
the proposed Project. PolyMet suggests deleting first sentence.
Comment 224.
Section 5.2.7.5, p. 5-434, Amphibole Mineral Fibers
PolyMet addresses information that is critical to the discussion of the health risks
associated with amphibole mineral fibers in more detail in Attachment C to these
comments.
Comment 225.
Section 5.2.7.5.3, p. 5-441, NorthMet Proposed Action
PolyMet recommends deleting the second to l ast sentence in the second to l ast
paragraph on the page, which reads: At the time this review was conducted, PM
2.5
was
not regulated under PSD and at the beginning of the sentence and starting with [T]he
NorthMet Project Proposed Action is not subj ect to PSD
Comment 226.
Section 5.2.7.5.3, p. 5-442, NorthMet Project Proposed Action
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 57 of 70
In the second paragraph, PolyMet recommends adding a statement that PolyMet
agreed to apply more rigorous dust control procedures for unpaved roads at the Mine
Site to also reduce fugitive emissions.
Comment 227.
Section 5.2.10.2.6, p. 5-509; Section 6.2.3.11, p. 6-101
The text in the above two sections makes reference to a potential Environmental Justice
(EJ) impact for Band members and other subsistence consumers of fish due to
increased mercury concentrations and associated increases in mercury
bioaccumulation in fish tissue. This conclusion is reportedly based on the analysis
presented in Section 5.2.2.3.4 and rel ates specifically to the Embarrass River and
downstream chain of lakes. Page 5-509 states:
Operations could affect individuals who consume fish harvested from nearby water
bodies. The NorthMet Project Proposed Action would increase mercury concentrations
in the Embarrass River Watershed, as well as some nearby lakes, although it would
decrease mercury concentrations in the Partridge River watershed (see Section
5.2.2.3.4).
The discussion in Section 5.2.2.3.4 states that there would be a slight increase of up to
0.6 grams per year (from 22.3 to 22.9 grams per year), about a 3% increase. Although
not directly referenced in Sections 5.2.10.2.6 or 6.2.3.11, text in the first paragraph on
Page 5-21 is the only attempt in the document to correlate mercury concentrations in a
water column to mercury content in fish. This is a critical connection if one attempts to
suggest there is a potential EJ issue. As stated in Comment 118 above, PolyMet does
not believe this rel ationship is substantiated by either site specific data or more general
research presented in the literature. The statement that there is a potential EJ impact
due to increased mercury concentrations and associated increases in mercury
bioaccumulation in fish tissue is unsubstantiated by fact.
Comment 228.
Section 5.2.13.2.4, p. 5-542, Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know
The third full paragraph inaccurately states that PolyMet will be required to develop a
risk management plan for HCl. Only HCl at a concentration of 37% or greater is subject
per 40 CFR 68.130. PolyMet will be required to develop a risk management plan for
liquid SO2.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 58 of 70
Comment 229.
Section 5.2.14, p. 5-545
The third paragraph states: Conceptual designs of the waste rock stockpiles, Tailings
Basin, and Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility have been devel oped and shown by
PolyMet, through an iterative design and model process, to meet the minimum safety
factors and water qual ity criteria (see Section 5.2.2) acceptable to the Co-lead
Agencies. PolyMet suggests changing the word conceptual to preliminary.
Comment 230.
Section 5.2.14.2.1, p. 5-555, Modeling Results
The required and computed Slope Stability Factors of Safety for the stockpil es are not
presented. Stockpil e Sl ope Stability Safety Factors are reported in Tabl es 2, 3 and 4 of
Attachment G of the May 29, 2012 Geotechnical Data Package, Vol. 3, Version 2.
Comment 231.
Section 5.2.14.2.2, p. 5-556, Tailings Basin
The second bullet under Design Criteria states: Factor of safety greater than or equal
to 1.3 for short-term, undrained strength conditions for soils that are not prone to static
liquefaction using undrained strength conditions. This sentence should be revised to
indicate that this analysis does not include static liquefaction. Liquefaction is addressed
subsequently.
Comment 232.
Section 5.2.14.2.2, p. 5-561, Design
The second paragraph uses the phrase bulk tail ings. PolyMet recommends defining
bulk tailings to limit potential confusion. LTVSMC Coarse Tailings are proposed for
use in dam construction but since the Coarse Tail ings may have occasional inclusions
of fine tailings and slimes, the term Bulk Tailings has been used by PolyMet to
describe the pl anned tailings borrow.
The same comment applies to page 5-562, which states: The proposed dams would
be constructed from mechanically placed and compacted bulk tailings taken from the
existing LTVSMC Tailings Basin as needed to produce the desired dam lift height and
geometry. LTVSMC bulk tail ings are currently defined as a mixture of tailings from the
existing LTVSMC Tailings Basin.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 59 of 70
Comment 233.
Section 5.2.14.2.2, p. 5-562, Design
The eighth paragraph states: As dams are constructed, exterior slopes would be
covered with bentonite and vegetated. Upon reaching.. This statement is not
compl etel y accurate. On the exterior face of new dams, bentonite will be integrated into
the near-surface l ayer of tail ings. The dams will not be covered with bentonite.
Comment 234.
Section 5.2.14.2.2, p. 5-565, Slope Stability
The second sentence states: The predicted Factor of Safety values for Cross Section F
at various stages of development of the Tailings Basin are summarized in Tabl e 5.2.14-
1. All slope stability factors are designed to meet the factors of safety required by the
NorthMet Geotechnical Modeling Work Plan (PolyMet 2013n, Attachment A). It is more
appropriate to say that the slope stabil ity factors are designed to meet the applicable
requirements of Minnesota Rules 6115.0300 through 6115.0520 and the factors of
safety required by the Co-Lead agencies in the NorthMet Geotechnical Modeling
Work Plan (PolyMet 2013n, Attachment A).
The first paragraph under Design Criteria on p. 5-556 contains similar language.
Comment 235.
Section 5.2.14.2.2, p. 5-567, Long-term Closure Stability Conditions
The third paragraph states: Model ing was undertaken to predict the long-term stability
of the Tailings Basin. As shown in Table 5.2.14-1 and Tabl e 5.2.14-4, the long-term
closure sl ope stability Factors of Safety are above the minimum value required under
the Work Plan. It is more appropriate to say that the slope stability Factors of Safety
are above the minimum value deemed acceptable to the Co-lead Agencies and
required under the Work Plan.
There is similar language in the last paragraph on p. 5-566.
Comment 236.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5-569, Proposed Maintenance and Mitigation
The second paragraph states: Where monitoring or model updates indicate that the
Factor of Safety for the Tailings Basin no longer meets design criteria, appropriate
modifications to the Tailings Basin would be considered, modeled, and, if necessary,
undertaken. This sentence leaves doubt that prompt action will be taken if Factor of
Safety values fall below design requirements. PolyMet recommends clarifying that
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 60 of 70
mitigating measures will be explored and impl emented as needed if at any time it is
determined that Factor of Safety values have fallen bel ow design requirements.
Comment 237.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5- 570, Methodology
The first paragraph states: PolyMet took the steps listed below in order to demonstrate
that the design of the Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility would meet the respective
geotechnical requirements and would be in accordance with the NorthMet Geotechnical
Modeling Work Pl an (PolyMet 2013n, Attachment A): PolyMet recommends revising
the sentence to read: PolyMet took the steps listed below in order to demonstrate that
the design of the Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility would meet the Co-Lead
Agencies respective geotechnical requirements and would be in accordance with the
NorthMet Geotechnical Modeling Work Pl an (PolyMet 2013n, Attachment A) which was
reviewed by the Co-Lead Agencies.
Comment 238.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5-570, Methodology
The third item under the first paragraph states: Devel oped seepage and stability
models using Geo-Slope International, Inc. modeling software (i.e., SLOPE/W, SEEP/W
and SIGMA/W as necessary) for maximum facility dam height with minimum and
maximum pond el evation, and post-closure cover effective with minimum pond
elevation the maximum. The last phrase is poorly written and confusing. PolyMet
suggests using the following revised text: Devel oped seepage and gl obal stability
models using Geo-Slope International, Inc. modeling software (i.e., SLOPE/W, SEEP/W
and SIGMA/W as necessary) for hydrometallurgical residue facility dam lifts 1, 2 and 3;
each with maximum pond elevation, and an infinite stability model to analyze facility
liner stability.
Comment 239.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5-574, Figure 5.2.14-6, Cross Sections A and B of
the Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility at Year 20
The text describing the figure (see paragraph under Identification of Design Cross
Section on p. 5-571) makes reference to Node A. Yet, Node A is not shown in the
figure. There also is a blue dashed line (presumably denoting the phreatic surface in
surrounding materials) that is not defined in the figure legend nor is the dashed line
label ed in the figure.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 61 of 70
Comment 240.
This Section does not clearly distinguish between (1) the settlement of the
Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility (HRF) foundation materials and resulting movement
of the HRF liner system and (2) future consolidation of the residue deposited within the
HRF and resulting movement of the residue surface. PolyMet recommends more detail
to provide clarification.
Comment 241.
The first paragraph states: The results reported in Geotechnical Data Package Volume
2 Version 3 indicate that the proposed design of the Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility
would meet all respective factors of safety as required (PolyMet 2012a). The modeling
undertaken and results are summarized bel ow. PolyMet suggests revising the
statement to say that the design would meet all of the Co-Lead agencies respective
factors of safety as required (PolyMet 2012a).
Comment 242.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5-575, Global Slope Stability
The first paragraph states: Analysis of the new dams (i.e., those not supported by the
existing LTVSMC Tailings Basin or natural topography) at their greatest height (at year
20) resulted in a computed Factor of Safety for the ESSA of 2.32, which is greater than
the required minimum of 1.5. The sentence should be revised to state that the resulting
Factor of Safety is greater than the Co-Lead Agencies required minimum of 1.5.
Comment 243.
Section 5.2.14.2.3, p. 5-575, Infinite Slope Stability
The fourth sentence of the first paragraph states: The minimum infinite sl ope stability
safety factor for all Hydrometallurgical Residue Facility liner system components is 1.5.
It would be more appropriate if the sentence was revised to read: The Co-Lead
Agencies required minimum infinite slope stability safety factor for all.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 62 of 70
Comment 244.
Section 5.3.5, p. 5-625, Wildlife
The third sentence of the third paragraph incorrectly states that the Land Exchange
alternatives were not analyzed in the Biological Assessment. These alternatives were
analyzed in the Biol ogical Assessment (BA). This sentence should be revised to state
Land Exchange alternatives were analyzed in the Biological Assessment for the
Proposed NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange (USACE and USFS November
2013).
Comment 245.
Section 5.3.6.2.4, pp. 5-646 5-652, Aquatic Species
The last sentence in this paragraph is inaccurate because Coyote Creek and Stony
River on Tract 3-Wolf Lands are not comparable systems. The Stony River is a higher
order, more diverse aquatic system than the first order, headwaters Coyote Creek. It
cannot be assumed that the conclusions drawn from the studies for Stony River are
applicable to Coyote Creek.
Comment 246.
General Comment on Chapter 6
PolyMet addresses the issue of cumulative impacts, which is discussed in this chapter,
in Attachment D to these comments.
Comment 247.
Section 6.2.3.3.1, p. 6-17
The fifth paragraph states: The only two reasonably foreseeable actions with the
potential to significantly affect fl ow within the Partridge River and Embarrass River are
the Mesaba Energy Proj ect East Range Alternative Site and the Mesabi Mining Proj ect,
which would result in a net increase in Lower Partridge River flow as a result of pit
dewatering for the foreseeable future. This statement seems to ignore the eventual
closure of the Northshore Peter Mitchell Pit (which is recognized elsewhere in the
SDEIS). When that pit begins filling, Northshore will stop dewatering discharge to the
Upper Partridge River. This would be a net decrease in fl ow relative to existing and
modeled conditions. This action is anticipated within the model ing period but is not
incorporated into the GoldSim model because the actual date of when this change
would be made is not known. However, the potential for no discharge from Northshore
to the Partridge River was considered in the sensitivity analysis conducted for the
Project.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 63 of 70
Comment 248.
Section 6.2.3.3.4, p. 6-32, Table 6.2-6
Tabl e 6.2-6 lists cumulative sulfate loadings to the Embarrass River by activity and
includes NorthMet uncaptured groundwater seepage and NorthMet WWTF effluent.
Tabl e 6.2-6 does not include NorthMet augmentation fl ow from Colby Lake to
Embarrass River tributaries. This source has a higher sulfate concentration than the
WWTF effluent, and should be included in the Table.
Comment 249.
General Comment on Section 6.2.3.4
The introduction to Section 6.2.3.4, Wetlands, on page 6-34 states that the cumulative
effects analysis focuses on direct effects on wetl ands. Page 6-43 indicates that there
will not be indirect cumulative effects on wetl ands because water fl ows will not be
changed. This discussion is in some tension with the effects analysis in Chapter 5,
which anticipates the potential for some indirect effects on wetlands. PolyMet
recommends referencing the discussion in Chapter 5 as part of the cumulative effects
discussion.
Comment 250.
Section 6.2.3.5.1, p. 6-43
Regarding the third sentence of the third paragraph, no federally-listed pl ant species
would be affected by the proj ect because there are no federally-listed plant species in
all of St. Louis or Lake Counties. PolyMet recommends re-phrasing the sentence to
read, No federally-listed plant species are known to occur on the NorthMet Proj ect
site.
Comment 251.
Section 6.2.3.5.4, p. 45, Existing Baseline Conditions and Past Losses
The text states that least grapefern (Botrychi um simpl ex) is most likely to occur in
lowland deciduous cover types. However, l east grapefern has a broader habitat range
than the text implies. The MDNR Rare Species Guide provides:
Botrychium simplex var. simplex occurs primarily in open sites, including prairies,
wetlands, and abandoned mine sites. Botrychium simplex var. tenebrosum prefers
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 64 of 70
forest interiors, especially l ow moist spots in mesic hardwood forests (Source: MDNR
Rare Species Guide: Botrychium simplex).
2
The text also conflicts with Tabl e 6.2-14, which lists both Disturbed and lowland
deciduous as the likely habitat types. Finally, the section underestimates the range of
least grapefern. The Preferred Pl ant Species Habitat column for least grapefern should
include habitats other than l owland deciduous types, as discussed in the MDNR guide.
Comment 252.
Section 6.2.3.5.4, p. 6-45, Existing Baseline Conditions and Past Losses
In the final paragraph bel ow Table 6.2-13, the qualifying statement regarding the lack of
precision and the degree of uncertainty inherent in the evaluation methodol ogy should
be stated up front in Sections 4.2.4, 5.2.4 and 6.2.4.
Comment 253.
Section 6.2.3.5.4, p. 6-47, Environmental Consequences of Reasonably
Foreseeable Actions on ETSC and RFSS Plant Species
In the second sentence, it is unclear what is meant by MDNR minerals division data
and how this data pertains to ETSC or RFSS pl ant species. PolyMet recommends
clarifying and expl aining why this data is used in this section, but not in Sections 4.2.4
or 5.2.4.
Comment 254.
Section 6.2.3.5.4, p. 6-49, Environmental Consequences of Reasonably
Foreseeable Actions on ETSC and RFSS Plant Species
The last paragraph states that forestry management offers a greater range of options
for ETSC plants to co-exist with the practice, as it can mimic natural disturbances. This
statement seems to be based on the previous statement in Section 5.2.4.2.1, p. 5-348,
that Disturbance-tol erant species may, in some cases, actually be disturbance-
dependent. As stated in a prior comment, PolyMet believes this statement is
misleading and that it is inaccurate to suggest that ETSC pl ants favor and/or are
increased by disturbance regimes.
2
Available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html ?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PPOPH010E0.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 65 of 70
Comment 255.
Section 6.2.3.7, p. 6-62, Effects from Mercury Deposition
In the l ast sentence of the l ast paragraph, the increased percentage from the NorthMet
Project Proposed Action al one should be 0.2 to 1.6 percent, not 0.2 to 1.8.
Comment 256.
PolyMet also recommends adding the following additional sentence at end of the
paragraph at the top of the page: This potential change is not likely statistically
measureabl e and does not have any effect on the background fish Hg concentrations
nor the current fish consumption advisories for the respective l akes."
Comment 257.
In the first complete paragraph, the description of how the HQ is calculated does not
refl ect the calculations in the MMREM spreadsheet. To estimate the potential
incremental HQ, the incremental methyl mercury exposure in mg/kg body weight per
day and the reference dose are accounted for in the calculation. The derivation of the
incremental HQ can be described as noted below:
The incremental HQ calcul ation in the MMREM Spreadsheet uses the following
methodol ogy:
Incremental daily mercury consumed (mg) = estimated incremental increase in
fish mercury due to the Proj ect (mg/kg) x the amount of fish consumed (e.g.
0.142 kg for a subsistence fisher)
Incremental methylmercury exposure (mg/kg BW day) = Incremental daily
mercury consumed x 1.07945 / adult body weight (70 kg)
Incremental HQ = Incremental methylmercury exposure (mg/kg BW day) /
Reference Dose of 1.00E-04 mg HgCH3/kg bw-day (i.e., the ratio of the
incremental methylmercury exposure divided by the reference dose in the same
units).
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 66 of 70
Comment 258.
Section 6.2.3.8.4, p. 6-77, Table 6.2-19, Total Cumulative Modeled Air
Concentration
The cumul ative emissions modeling includes NorthMet, so adding this result to the
Project impacts includes some double counting of impacts. See also second to l ast
sentence in paragraph under Section 6.2.3.8.4 header on p. 6-64. PolyMet suggests the
following text changes and note additions to Tabl e 6.2-19:
Class I Area Averaging
Time
Maximum
Modeled Air
Concentration
For NorthMet
Modeled
Emissions
Maximum
Modeled Air
Concentration
For Cumulative
Modeled
Emissions
(MPCA
Inventory
1
)
Conservative
Estimate of
Total
Cumulative
Modeled Air
Concentration
3)
2
PSD Increment
3)
BWCAW 24-hour 0.33 1.76 2.09 8
Voyageurs
National Park
24-hour 0.13 0.22 0.35 8
1 The MPCAinventory includes the Project, but not the same emission datathat was modeledfor the SDEIS.
2 The value is conservative because the Project is included in both the MPCA inventory and the modeling done for the Project alonefor the SDEIS.
Comment 259.
Section 6.2.3.8.11, p. 6-87, Potential Cumulative Inhalation Risk
Assessment
Regarding the last sentence of the first paragraph, the cumulative analysis included
both the Mesabi Nugget Large Scale Demonstration Pl ant and the Mesabi Mining
Project.
Comment 260.
Section 6.2.3.8.11, p. 6-88, Table 6.2-22
The incremental result for Mesabi Nugget noncancer acute should be 0.03. The
percentages at the bottom should be 9% for Cancer and 7% for Noncancer Chronic.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 67 of 70
Comment 261.
Section 6.2.3.8.5, p. 6-77, Cumulative Effects of Acid Deposition on
Ecosystems
Regarding the third sentence of the first paragraph, dry deposition, as well as wet
deposition, was in the cumulative assessment.
Comment 262.
Section 6.2.3.8.8, p. 6-86, Summary of Visibility Cumulative Effects
Analysis
PolyMet suggests editing the header of Point 4 to read:
"15 percent of 2018 visibility impairment proj ected to be due to northeast Minnesota
emissions and 70 percent of visibility impairment due to out of state emissions"
Comment 263.
Analysis
PolyMet suggests the last sentence of Point 4 be revised to read:
"Emissions from Minnesota are the single largest contributor to regional haze and its
own Class I areas; however, most of the visibility impairment in these areas is due
to out of state emissions."
Comment 264.
Analysis
PolyMet recommends adding language to Item 5 that indicates national emission
reductions are likely to drive further improvement of visibility in MN Class I areas.
Comment 265.
Section 6.2.3.11.2, p. 6-96, Cumulative Effects
The third paragraph under the heading 1854 Treaty Resources states that the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action could affect treaty resources through the
bioaccumulation of mercury in fish tissue. This statement is inconsistent with the
SDEISs evaluation of cumulative effects on aquatic resources, which states that there
will not be a significant increase of mercury in fish tissue. Because the subj ective belief
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 68 of 70
that such an effect may occur does not qualify as an effect under NEPA, the statement
on page 6-95 should be removed from the SDEIS.
Comment 266.
Section 6.2.3.13.4, p. 6-105, Cumulative Effects
The statement on hazardous materials in Section 6.2.3.14 indicates that there could be
a small likelihood of cumulative effects associated with increased traffic carrying
hazardous materials. This is a mischaracterization of the potential cumulative effect.
The sentence should state that the small increased risk associated with traffic carrying
hazardous materials is not a significant cumulative effect.
Comment 267.
Section 6.3, Land Exchange Proposed Action
PolyMet recommends clarifying whether acres are reported in GLO or GIS throughout
the entire section.
Comment 268.
Section 6.3.4.4.3, p. 6-121, Effect of Cumulative Actions on GAP
Analysis Program Land Cover Types
The text in the last paragraph is somewhat misl eading by stating that there would be a
decrease to MBS Sites of High and Moderate Biodiversity Significance. The non-
federal lands have not been surveyed for MBS sites yet. Therefore, you cannot
accurately say that there would be a decrease; the surveys could potentially indicate
that there would be an increase, or an even exchange.
Comment 269.
General Comment on Section 7.2
PolyMet addresses the issue of the Land Exchange Proposed Action, which is
discussed on this section, in Attachment B to these comments.
Comment 270.
Section 7.3.1, p. 7-10, Comparison of Alternatives and Other NEPA
Considerations
The final sentence in Section 7.3.1 indicates that the federal lands contain certain
natural resources that are culturally important to the Bands. Whil e it is accurate that
these resources would be l ost if the NorthMet Proj ect Proposed Action moves forward, it
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 69 of 70
is also true, and should be noted, that there is no evidence of the Bands accessing any
resources at the Mine Site.
Comment 271.
Considerations
The third sentence in the third paragraph of Section 7.3.1, Irreversi ble or Irretri evable
Commitment of Resources, states that whil e cultural resources may be adversely
affected, those effects would be minimized through avoidance. Under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act, avoidance is not the only means of addressing
adverse effects on historic properties, including the cultural resources identified in the
SDEIS. Agencies may also choose to adopt minimization or mitigation measures.
Those options should also be recognized in this paragraph.
Comment 272.
Considerations
The final sentence in the first paragraph of Section 7.3.3, Unavoi dable Adverse
Effects, states that effects on water quality would remain after the implementation of
mitigation measures. The paragraph should note that these effects would be minor, and
not qual ify as significant environmental effects.
Comment 273.
Section 7.4, p. 7-12, Comparison of Alternatives and Other NEPA
Considerations
The first paragraph of Section 7.4, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, states that CEQ
regul ations do not require agencies to select a preferred alternative in a Draft EIS like
the SDEIS. The same paragraph states that the USACEs NEPA regulations (Appendix
B of 33 C.F.R. Part 325) supersede the CEQ regul ations requirement to identify an
agency-preferred alternative. This description of these requirements is confusing.
Neither the CEQ regul ations nor the USACE regul ations require the selection of a
preferred alternative in the SDEIS.
Comment 274.
Appendix B, p. 1, 1.2 Assessment of Material
In the first sentence, semi-qualitative should be changed to semi-quantitative.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
Page 70 of 70
Comment 275.
Appendix B, p. 4, 2.2 Availability
The last sentence of this section should be changed to: Notwithstanding economic
considerations the underground mining alternative is available at the NorthMet Deposit.
Comment 276.
Appendix B, p. 5, 2.4.1 Mineralization at the NorthMet Deposit
With respect to the bullet list of metal prices after the first paragraph, the referenced
price for cobalt should be $17.69 per pound.
Comment 277.
Appendix B, p. 7, 2.4.2 Underground Mining Costs
In Table 2, the Pre-production Capital Costs ($ million) of 300 should be changed to
250. The Profit: Metal Value Costs ($ million) of -$193 should be changed to -$192
and -$364 should be changed to -$314.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
1
ATTACHMENT A ALTERNATIVES COMMENTS
The Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) indicates that the NorthMet
Project Proposed Action and alternatives were developed during project scoping in 2005.
SDEIS p.3-142. The SDEIS further explains that several refinements were made to the
proposed action in the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), such that the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action studied in the SDEIS is not identical to the proposed action in
the 2009 DEIS. Id. At the same time, the SDEIS points out that because some of the alternatives
to the proposed action were eliminated during the scoping and DEIS phases of the project, they
were not re-evaluated in the SDEIS. Id. at 3-142, 3-143 & Figure 3.2-32.
The alternatives review for the NorthMet Project fulfilled all of NEPAs and MEPAs
requirements. Indeed, the careful review, refinement and elimination of alternatives is a
paradigm of proper environmental review. Section 3.2.3 of the SDEIS would be improved if it
better reflected the thoroughness of the Co-lead agencies alternatives review, including review
that occurred during scoping and the 2009 DEIS. To that end, this comment attachment offers a
brief overview of the entire alternatives review process, and a recommendation for minor
changes in the Final EIS.
2005 Scoping Decision
The formal scoping process for the NorthMet Project began nearly a decade ago, with the June
2005 publication of a Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and a Draft
Scoping Decision. The next month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) published a
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the project. The agencies engaged in public reviewand
comment of these documents, including comment on potential project alternatives.
On October 25, 2005, after consideration of potential project alternatives and environmental
effects, the agencies published a Final Scoping Decision Document (FSDD) that describes
various alternatives in each of the categories required by Minnesota lawalternative sites,
alternative technologies, modified designs or layouts, modified scale or magnitude, and
alternatives incorporating mitigation measures. As discussed below, the scoping document
explains why some of these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration, while others
were carried forward for more detailed study in the 2009 DEIS.
SiteAlternatives The FSDD explained that, because the mineralization dictates the location of
the mine site, an alternative site would not meet the projects purpose and need and should be
eliminated from further consideration. FSDD p.3. An alternative plant site was likewise
eliminated from further consideration on the grounds that the re-use of an existing facility would
have fewer environmental effects than other, greenfield sites. Id. Two alternative waste rock
disposal sites and one alternative tailings basin site were carried forward for further
consideration in the DEIS. Id. pp.2-3.
TechnologyAlternatives The agencies considered two alternative technologies for the project.
They decided not to evaluate alternative hydrometallurgical technologies, concluding that they
would not have significant environmental benefits over what PolyMet had proposed. FSDD p.4.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
2
The agencies also briefly addressed an underground mining alternative, noting that [i]f the cost
of developing an underground mining alternative were so high that [PolyMet] could not develop
the project, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project. Id. p.5. The
underground mining alternative was carried forward for further consideration in the DEIS.
ModifiedDesignsor Layouts The agencies eliminated alternative designs for the
transportation corridor and the plant site, neither of which offered environmental benefits greater
than those offered by the proposed project. FSDD p.5. With respect to the mine site, the
agencies considered a number of different design and layout modifications, including using two
mine pits instead of three, chemical modification and lined tailings basin disposal of reactive
waste rock stockpiles, pre-treatment of certain wastewater, and use of reactive wastewater as
make-up water for the plant site. Id. p.6. Each of these alternatives, along with several technical
design reports, was slated for further consideration in the DEIS.
Scaleor MagnitudeAlternatives The FSDD evaluated the possibility of changing the scope of
the proposed project, but concluded that the return on investment for a smaller scale project was
infeasible. Accordingly, the FSDD concluded that a reduced scale would not meet the purpose
and need of the project. FSDD p.7.
AlternativesIncorporatingMitigationMeasures In addition to alternatives that would modify
the project, the FSDD also included alternatives that incorporated reasonable mitigation
measures. The first of these mitigation alternatives proposed monitoring programs for waste
rock stockpiles and the tailings basin. FSDD p.7. The second mitigation alternative included a
lined tailings storage facility within the tailings basin, and continued testing to determine tailings
reactivity. Id. pp.7-8. Both of these mitigation alternatives were carried forward for additional
consideration in the DEIS.
2009 DEIS
Following the publication of the FSDD, PolyMet provided a project description to the co-lead
agencies. Over the next three years, PolyMet continued to gather data and consult with the
agencies, which led to several modifications to the proposed action. Among these modifications
was the incorporation of certain mitigation measures, as well as the two mine pit alternative, into
the proposed action. In addition to a no-action alternative, the DEIS analyzed the following
alternatives to PolyMets proposed action:
MineSiteAlternative The Mine Site Alternative consisted of modifications to the mine site
design or layout intended to reduce potential effects on surface water and groundwater. The
Mine Site Alternative proposed, among other things, sub-aqueous disposal of the most reactive
waste rock and lined, temporary stockpiles for other waste rock. DEIS p.3-51.
TailingsBasin Alternative The Tailings Basin Alternative included various modifications to
the tailings basin intended to increase geotechnical stability and capture seepage from the tailings
basin. DEIS p.3-52. The Tailings Basin Alternative resulted fromthe comprehensive mitigation
planning effort by the co-lead agencies, and included input from all Cooperating Agencies and
consulting tribes. DEIS Table 3.2.2 lists twenty-seven individual mitigation measures developed
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
3
by this effort. DEIS Table 3.2-3 lists eleven combinations of individual mitigation measures that
were considered before selecting the Tailings Basin Alternative.
AlternativesConsideredBut Eliminated On the basis of analysis performed in connection
with the 2009 DEIS, several of the alternatives identified in the FSDD were eliminated from
further consideration. These included: (1) alternative waste rock disposal sites (DEIS p.3-62);
(2) the underground mining alternative, which was found to have costs so high that it failed to
meet the purpose and need of the project, and to pose safety hazards from mine ceiling collapse
(id. pp.3-58, 3-64, 3-69); and (3) pretreatment of runoff and use of runoff as make-up water at
the mine site (id. p.3-70). The DEIS also used a table (DEIS Table 3.2-4) to explain in detail the
reasons that twenty-one different alternatives were eliminated from further consideration.
The discussion in this section of the 2009 DEIS remains the best explanation for the elimination
of the various alternatives that were identified and advanced for additional consideration by the
FSDD.
2013 SDEIS
As noted above, the SDEIS contains a brief summary of the alternatives evaluation that took
place during the scoping and DEIS processes. When the agencies determined that a
supplemental environmental document was necessary, PolyMet continued to refine its proposed
action, taking into account the analysis in the DEIS, as well as comments on that analysis from
agencies and the public.
The most significant changes to PolyMets proposal involved improved waste and water
management at both the Mine Site and the Plant Sitethe key features of the Mine Site
Alternative and the Tailings Basin Alternative from the 2009 DEIS. SDEIS p.3-142.
Consequently, instead of three action alternatives, the SDEIS contained just one action
alternativethe NorthMet Project Proposed Actionwhich effectively combined the three
alternatives studied in the 2009 DEIS, in addition to making other improvements and including a
number of new mitigation measures. Id.
The SDEIS also reconsidered in more detail certain alternatives that had been eliminated by the
analysis in the 2009 DEIS. Those reconsidered alternatives included alternatives for a cover
system on the Tailings Basin, one of which PolyMet ultimately adopted (SDEIS p.3-149); an
underground mining alternative, which the SDEIS again rejected (id. p.3-150 & App. B); and a
West Pit backfill alternative, which was likewise eliminated from further consideration (id. p.3-
151). Table 3.2-17 in the SDEIS summarizes the alternatives from the 2009 DEIS that were re-
screened during the SDEIS process, and explains why those alternatives were either eliminated
or incorporated into the NorthMet Project Proposed Action. Table 3.2-18 summarizes the site,
technology, design/layout and scale alternatives considered during the entire NEPA and MEPA
process, with reference to the alternative identification numbers used in the 2009 DEIS.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
4
Conclusions and Recommendations
As the above discussion makes clear, the FSDD, 2009 DEIS and SDEIS contain a careful,
thorough reviewof numerous alternatives to the NorthMet Project Proposed Action that fully
satisfies the requirements of both NEPAand MEPA. It is unnecessary to discuss all the details
of that review in the SDEIS. Nonetheless, PolyMet recommends three changes to clarify the
process by which alternatives were considered and either eliminated from further consideration,
or incorporated into the NorthMet Project Proposed Action.
First, PolyMet recommends explicitly referencing and incorporating into the SDEIS those
portions of the FSDD and the 2009 DEIS that address alternatives. This should increase
understanding of the iterative process of alternatives reviewthat the SDEIS already references in
several places.
Second, PolyMet recommends including an updated version of Table 3.2-4 from the 2009 DEIS
somewhere in the Final EIS, either directly in the discussion of alternatives or as an appendix.
This would provide context for the discussion of alternatives review and the elimination of
alternatives that are not discussed as part of the SDEIS process.
Lastly, these changes should also be reflected in the Executive Summary, which tends to focus
on the SDEIS alternatives reviewprocess, without fully acknowledging the role played by
alternatives review in the FSDD and the 2009 DEIS.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
1
ATTACHMENT B LAND EXCHANGE COMMENTS
This attachment to PolyMets comments on the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS) includes detailed comments on the Land Exchange Proposed Action.
The Land Exchange Is Independently Justified
The SDEIS properly acknowledges that the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) decision on the Land
Exchange Proposed Action must be based on applicable USFS standards. But the SDEIS could
more clearly state that the Land Exchange Proposed Action can proceed if those standards are
met, regardless of what happens with the NorthMet Project Proposed Action. Accordingly,
consistent with the discussion in the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS),
PolyMet recommends that the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) clarify that the
Land Exchange Proposed Action may occur independently of the NorthMet Project Proposed
Action. The SDEIS includes ample information demonstrating that the Land Exchange Proposed
Action independently satisfies applicable regulatory standards. For convenience and ease of
comparison, PolyMet is providing a detailed matrix with these comments that compares the
record information concerning the federal lands and non-federal lands proposed for exchange.
The fact that the Land Exchange Proposed Action and the NorthMet Project Proposed Action are
treated as connected actions in the SDEIS does not mean that the two actions are completely
interdependent. Rather, the two actions are treated as connected in the SDEIS because there is
sufficient relationship between the two separate federal actions that addressing both in a single
NEPA document is appropriate. Polymet recognizes USFSs position that mining (i.e., the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action) could not occur on National Forest System Lands within the
Superior National Forest. The land exchange has the effect of eliminating any dispute over
PolyMets right to mine. But even though USFS maintains that the mining cannot occur without
the Land Exchange, USFS and PolyMet agree that the Land Exchange is not contingent on
regulatory approval of the NorthMet Project. The Final EIS accordingly should clearly state that
the Land Exchange Proposed Action can proceed entirely apart from the NorthMet Project
Proposed Action, so long as the USFS determines that the land exchange is in the public interest
and the regulations governing land exchanges are satisfied.
The environmental effects of both the Land Exchange Proposed Action and the NorthMet Project
Proposed Action are fully and separately evaluated in the SDEIS. As a result, it is not necessary
to create an entirely newalternative for NEPAevaluation. As Section 3.3.3.3 of the SDEIS
explains, alternatives need not be analyzed in detail if they are already represented in the
review of other alternatives environmental effects. The Final EIS accordingly should clarify
that the alternative of proceeding with the Land Exchange Proposed Action in the absence of the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis in the
SDEIS because it is represented by the combination of no action on the NorthMet Project
Proposed Action and Land Exchange Proposed Action Alternative A. This could be
accomplished by adding a brief description of the Land Exchange Proposed Action as a stand
alone action in Section 3.3.3.3. The alternative would not be eliminated as unreasonable, but
rather it would not require further analysis because its impacts were already revealed and
evaluated in the SDEIS detailed evaluation of other alternatives.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
2
Relatedly, the USFS purpose and need statement in the Final EIS should clearly state that the
Land Exchange Proposed Action is intended to consolidate and enhance the functional
boundaries of the Superior National Forest, improve public access to National Forest System
lands, and implement the overall goals of the Forest Plan for the Superior National Forest. This
language will expand on the SDEISs accurate statement that the USFS will observe the
regulatory requirements for land exchanges. The statement of purpose and need should not
suggest that the sole purpose of the Land Exchange Proposed Action is to avoid a disagreement
over PolyMets right to mine under its minerals lease.
PolyMet further recommends adding to the front of the Final EIS a discussion of the regulations
that require the USFS to ensure there is equalization of exchange values between the federal and
non-federal lands, and more clearly linking these regulations with subsequent discussions of this
topic in the record. In doing this, the USFS should make clear moving forward that Polymet
intends to transfer all of the non-federal lands to the United States, whether they are needed for
the Land Exchange Proposed Action exchange or not. At the same time, the USFS can highlight
the possibility of a cash equalization if the offered non-Federal lands are deemed insufficient to
provide an equal value exchange.
Finally, in light of the discussion above, PolyMet recommends that the USFS ensure that the
Executive Summary is updated to conform to any changes made in the Final EIS. The
independent grounds for undertaking the Land Exchange Proposed Action should be particularly
clear in the revised Executive Summary, because many readers likely will rely on the Executive
Summary to understand the contents of the EIS.
Detailed Comments on the Land Exchange Proposed Action
In the paragraphs that follow, PolyMet identifies certain sections of the SDEIS (in numerical
order) where it recommends changes to the discussion of the Land Exchange. In the enclosed
attachment, PolyMet identifies additional sections/text for proposed revision. Depending on the
nature and extent of the changes to the Final EIS, there may be other sections of the document
that would also benefit from clarification.
Section 1.1.2, Land Exchange
Section 1.1.2, Land Exchange, uses the phrase depending on the results of the environmental
analysis and real estate appraisals to mean that the USFS will comply with applicable
regulations and Executive Order (EO) 11990 and 11988 to require equalization of exchange
values for the federal and non-federal lands, both in terms of market value and acreage of
wetlands. As the USFS is aware, Section 3.3.1.1 (among others) discusses the applicable
regulations in 36 CFR Part 254 and EOs 11990 and 11988. Discussing these applicable orders
and regulations in Section 1.1.2when the Land Exchange Proposed Action is first
introducedand stating expressly that the USFS will require equalization of exchange values,
would help to clarify subsequent uses of the phrase. In addition, modifying this phrase (each
time it appears) to say something more along the lines of depending on the results of the
environmental analysis and real estate appraisals, and in order to ensure equalization of
exchange, would also improve understanding of this issue.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
3
In this regard, it is important to note that Polymet is committed to transferring all of the non-
federal lands to the United States under the Land Exchange Proposed Action for management
within the Superior National Forest, regardless of the results of the analysis of equalization of the
exchange. If the USFS determines that all of the non-federal lands are not needed for an equal
exchange under the Land Exchange Proposed Action, PolyMet would transfer title on a
voluntary basis. Conversely, if the non-federal lands are not sufficient for an equal exchange,
Polymet would make a cash payment as authorized under governing regulations. Ultimately,
under the Land Exchange Proposed Action, all of the non-federal lands identified and described
in the SDEIS will become part of the Superior National Forest.
Section 1.3, Purpose and Need
Section 1.3, Purpose and Need, would be strengthened by a more robust discussion of the
purpose of the Land Exchange Proposed Action, which clearly incorporates the relevant
regulatory and public interest factors. While the discussion in Section 1.4.3, Land Exchange
Requirements, identifies the regulatory and public interest factors that the ROD will need to
address in determining whether the Land Exchange Proposed Action should go forward, it
should be made clear that the phrase in Section 1.3.2.2, meet desired conditions in the Superior
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), includes the regulatory and
public interest factors discussed later in Section 1.4.3. Thus, PolyMet would recommend the
Final EIS specifically identify these factors in the initial discussion in Section 1.3, and include a
cross-reference to the more detailed discussion in Section 1.4.3.
In addition, although it is true the proposed land transfer will eliminate the need to otherwise
resolve a conflict between PolyMet and the USFS regarding the companys right to mine, the
Final EIS should be clear that the land exchange will be justified under governing regulatory and
public interest standards. Fundamentally, the Land Exchange Proposed Action will allow for the
consolidation of lands within the Superior National Forest in a manner consistent with governing
authorities. Section 1.3.2.1 accordingly should highlight this consolidation of lands as a primary
purpose of the Land Exchange Proposed Action, instead of focusing on the elimination of the
potential conflict.
To ensure that the reader is fully informed on the potential conflict, however, Section 1.3.2.2
should identify the fact that PolyMet does not agree with the USFS legal position. This could be
done by cross-reference to the appropriate sections in the 2009 DEIS that discuss this issue in
greater detail than the SDEIS. For example, a simple cross-cite to Section 1.3.2.2 of the 2009
DEIS would ensure that the reader is aware that additional information on this topic is contained
in the 2009 DEIS. PolyMet notes that the SDEIS repeats the USFS position (i.e., that mining
cannot occur within the Federal Lands) in many places; as a result, it would be appropriate to
note that PolyMet does not agree in most of the places where this issue is described.
Section 3.3, Land Exchange Proposed Action Detailed Description
In various places in Section 3.3, Land Exchange Proposed Action Detailed Description, PolyMet
recommends clarifying that the Land Exchange Proposed Action may proceed even if the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action does not. As discussed above, PolyMet recommends the
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
4
Final EIS clearly state that the Land Exchange Proposed Action can occur independent of the
regulatory approvals for the NorthMet Project Proposed Action.
Federal Lands Non-federal Lands
Feature Definition Proposed Action Alternative B No Action
Total for
Proposed
Action
Hay Lake Lands
(Tract 1)
Lake County
Lands (Tract 2)
Wolf Lake
Lands (Tract 3)
Hunting Club
Lands (Tract 4)
McFarland Lake
Lands (Tract 5)
Public Net Gain
(Loss)
GENERAL
Location
County St. Louis St. Louis St. Louis ---
St. Louis
County
Lake County Lake County
St. Louis
County
Cook County NA
Located within 1854 Ceded Territory yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Total size of lands
Acres (GLO) 6,650.2 4,900.7 no change 6,722.5 4,651.5 4,651.5 1,559.4 160.0 32.1 yes
Ownership
Current Surface Estate USFS USFS USFS
Lake County
Lands, private
PolyMet;
mortgage from
IRR
Lake County tax
forfeit lands;
purchased in
name of Lake-
Forest
Enterprise, Inc.
on a land
contract from
Lake County.
All right, title
and interest in
land will be
assigned to
PolyMet.
Purchased in
name of Lake-
Forest
Enterprise, Inc
through options
from Wolf
Lands, Inc. All
right, title and
interest in land
will be assigned
to PolyMet.
PolyMet Mining,
Inc.
PolyMet;
mortgage from
IRR
NA
Current Mineral Estate/Mineral Development Potential
(MDP)
private;USFS
high MDP
private;USFS
high MDP
private;USFS
high MDP
Outstanding,
State of MN,
private
low MDP
Outstanding
low MDP
Outstanding;
State of MN
low MDP
Anton T.
Anderson,
Kimberly Clark,
Duluth & Iron
Range Railroad
Co.
Low MDP
Mineral rights
owned by
surface owner
low MDP
Outstanding
low MDP
yes
Current Land Use Authority USFS USFS USFS
St. Louis
County, Lake
County, Cook
County
St. Louis
County zoning
ordinance
Lake County
zoning district
Lake County
zoning district
St. Louis
County zoning
ordinance
Cook County
zoning
ordinance
NA
Existing/Proposed USFS Management Unit (see 4.2.1
and 4.3.1)
General Forest,
General Forest-Longer
Rotation
General Forest, General
Forest-Longer Rotation
General Forest,
General Forest-
Longer Rotation
General Forest,
General Forest-
Longer
Rotation,
Riparian
Emphasis,
cRNA
General Forest ,
cRNA
General Forest,
General Forest-
Longer
Rotation,
Riparian
Emphasis Area
General Forest,
General Forest-
Longer
Rotation,
Riparian
Emphasis Area
General Forest-
Longer Rotation
General Forest-
Longer Rotation
NA
NATURAL RESOURCES
MDNR resource categories
Page 1 of 5
Total for
Proposed
Action
Hay Lake Lands
(Tract 1)
Lake County
Lands (Tract 2)
Wolf Lake
Lands (Tract 3)
Hunting Club
Lands (Tract 4)
McFarland Lake
Lands (Tract 5)
Public Net Gain
(Loss)
GENERAL
Dominant MDNR GAP Cover Types (acres of GAP
types that represent at least 20% of area)
lowland coniferous
forest (2,979), upland
coniferous forest
(1,619)
lowland coniferous forest
(2,065), upland
coniferous forest (1,366)
no change
lowland
coniferous
forest (2,921),
shrubland
(1,845)
shrubland
(1,665), lowland
coniferous
forest (1,524),
upland
deciduous
forest (1,000)
lowland
coniferous
forest (186)
lowland
coniferous
forest (1,202)
upland
deciduous
forest (85),
shrubland (45)
upland
deciduous
forest (27)
NA
Wildlife species (special status)
Federal-listed 1 1 no change 1 1 0 0 0 0 NA
State-listed (ETSC) 2 2 no change 2 2 0 0 0 0 NA
Wildlife corridors (identified) none none no change none none none none none none NA
Wildlife species habitat
Critical Canada lynx habitat Yes Yes no change Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Suitable lynx habitat 6,371.5 4,697.2 no change 6,808.4 4,675.1 376.1 1575.9 150.7 30.6 Yes
Suitable lynx denning habitat 5,393.4 3,912.9 no change 5,364.3 3,720.0 267.9 1,254.1 92.2 30.1 NA
Federal or State Wolf Zone Yes Yes no change Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes NA
Wolf forage habitat 271.1 271.1 no change 778.2 533.8 67.7 149.7 27 0 Yes
Wolf cover habitat 5,393.4 3,912.9 no change 5,364.3 3,720.0 267.9 1254.1 92.2 30.1 NA
WATER RESOURCES
Wetlands
Total Acreage 4,164.4 2,860.9 no change 4,669.9 2,930.8 282.9 1,392.6 63.6 0 Yes
Dominant Types (acres)
Types
representing at
least 20% of the
wetland area
are included
coniferous bog
(1,961.4), coniferous
swamp (1,287.8)
coniferous bog (1,677.0) no change
coniferous
swamp
(3,242.4), shrub
swamp
(1,062.4)
coniferous
swamp
(1,953.9), shrub
swamp (706.1)
coniferous
swamp (167.4)
coniferous
swamp
(1,105.7)
shrub swamp
(32.0),
coniferous
swamp (15.4),
shallow marsh
(13.0)
none NA
Functional assessment high/moderate high/moderate no change high/moderate high/moderate high/moderate high/moderate high/moderate NA NA
Lakes (number) 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 0
lake is adjacent
but not on the
Tract
Yes
Names Mud Lake Mud Lake Mud Lake
Hay Lake, Little
Rice Lake,
Unnamed Lake
Hay Lake, Little
Rice Lake,
Unnamed Lake
none none none
McFarland Lake
is adjacent to
the Tract
NA
Size (acres) 30.5 30.5 30.5 513.6 129.6 NA NA NA 384.0 Yes
Frontage (feet) 4,550.0 1,200.0 4,550.0 17,414.0 16,424.0 NA NA NA 990.0 Yes
Documented wild rice lakes none none none Hay Lake Hay Lake none none none none Yes
Rivers, streams, creeks (number) 2 2 2 2 1 none 1 none none Yes
Names
Yelp Creek, Partridge
River
Yelp Creek, Partridge
River
Yelp Creek,
Partridge River
Pike River,
Coyote Creek
Pike River NA Coyote Creek NA NA NA
Length (miles) 5.3 5.3 5.3 9.0 8 NA 1.0 NA NA Yes
Page 2 of 5
Total for
Proposed
Action
Hay Lake Lands
(Tract 1)
Lake County
Lands (Tract 2)
Wolf Lake
Lands (Tract 3)
Hunting Club
Lands (Tract 4)
McFarland Lake
Lands (Tract 5)
Public Net Gain
(Loss)
GENERAL
Frontage (includes both sides, feet) 60,523.0 55,968.0 60,523.0 83,424.0 72,864.0 NA 10,560.0 NA NA Yes
Aquatic Connectivity Index (ACI)
extent of dams,
bridges, and
culverts along
stream
segments
Floodplains
associated with
the Pike River
none
associated with
the Coyote
Creek
none none NA
FEMA 0 0 no change 0 0 NA 0 NA NA NA
ACCESSIBILITY
Public access points via road, trail, or lake
No practical public
access
No practical public
access
No
Yes - Tracts 1,
4 and 5; No -
Tacts 2 and 3
yes - via road,
trail, and lake
CR715 forms
part of east
boundary
yes - trail is
present but
difficult access
no - parcels 1
and 2; yes -
parcel 3 via
trail; yes, parcel
4 via nearby
road
yes, from nw via
trail from a
gravel road
yes - via lake or
adjacent USFS
land
Yes
Future access to Lands No No No
open to public
as USFS lands
open to public
as USFS lands
open to public
as USFS lands
open to public
as USFS lands
open to public
as USFS lands
open to public
as USFS lands
Yes
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) - Classes total
(acres)
0.0 0.0 no change 7,075.0 4,926.3 381.9 1,556.1 179.9 30.8 Yes
Semi-primitive motorized (acres) 0.0 0.0 no change 3,285.1 1,303.8 265.0 1,556.1 160.2 0.0 Yes
Semi-primitive non-motorized (acres) 0.0 0.0 no change 2,319.9 2,162.2 116.9 0.0 0.0 30.8 Yes
Roaded natural (acres) 0.0 0.0 no change 1,480.0 1,460.3 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 Yes
Hunting/trapping No No No Yes
no but old
sand/gravel pit
used as
shooting range.
Deer stands
observed.
Yes Yes no Yes
Fishing No No No
Hay Lake, Little
Rice Lake,
Unnamed Lake,
Pike River,
Coyote Creek,
McFarland Lake
Hay Lake, Little
Rice Lake,
Unnamed Lake,
Pike River
none Coyote Creek none
McFarland Lake
is adjacent to
the Tract
Yes
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Within 1854 Ceded Territory resources yes yes no change yes yes yes yes yes yes NA
Usufractory rights of 1854 Ceded Territory resources
could be available
No practical access to
exercise rights
No practical access to
exercise rights
no change yes yes yes yes yes yes Yes
SOCIOECONOMIC
Page 3 of 5
Total for
Proposed
Action
Hay Lake Lands
(Tract 1)
Lake County
Lands (Tract 2)
Wolf Lake
Lands (Tract 3)
Hunting Club
Lands (Tract 4)
McFarland Lake
Lands (Tract 5)
Public Net Gain
(Loss)
GENERAL
Forestry products
not accessible; no
current economic
activity although
timber harvesting is
permitted by the
Forest Plan. Company
has granted access
for timber harvest in
the past. Such access
may not be granted
due to public safety
and conflict with
neighboring mining
activities.
not accessible; no
current economic activity
although timber
harvesting is permitted
by the Forest Plan.
Company has granted
access for timber
harvest in the past.
Such access may not be
granted due to public
safety and conflict with
neighboring mining
activities.
not accessible; no
current economic
activity although
timber harvesting is
permitted by the
Forest Plan.
Company has
granted access for
timber harvest in
the past. Such
access may not be
granted due to
public safety and
conflict with
neighboring mining
activities.
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
positive
economic
effects due to
the value of
forestry
products made
available on the
non-federal
lands, as well
as jobs and
revenue due to
increased
visitation of the
non-federal
lands
Yes
Environmental Justice and Subsistence
No road or trail
access, difficult
access for subsistence
use under usufractory
rights
No road or trail access,
difficult access for
subsistence use under
usufractory rights
no change
likely positive
effects but as
yet
undetermined
effects for EJ
populations and
subsistence
activities, due to
the net increase
in the amount of
public land
available for
subsistence
activities, but
unknown
changes in the
type and extent
of subsistence
resources on
the federal and
non-federal
lands
Available for
subsistence use
under
usufractory
rights
Available for
subsistence use
under
usufractory
rights
Available for
subsistence use
under
usufractory
rights
Available for
subsistence use
under
usufractory
rights
Available for
subsistence use
under
usufractory
rights
Yes
Hazardous Materials
Page 4 of 5
Total for
Proposed
Action
Hay Lake Lands
(Tract 1)
Lake County
Lands (Tract 2)
Wolf Lake
Lands (Tract 3)
Hunting Club
Lands (Tract 4)
McFarland Lake
Lands (Tract 5)
Public Net Gain
(Loss)
GENERAL
Phase I ESA results No Issues No Issues
Legacy
Contamination
Structure
removal and
debris prior to
closing
Structure
removal and
debris prior to
closing
no issues no issues no issues
no issues -
Tract 5 was
formerly owned
and used by
Wheaton
College. A
bunkhouse, fire
ring, outhouse,
and cistern are
present,
although these
structures
would be
removed prior
to the
completion of
the Land
Exchange
Proposed
Action.
NA
Page 5 of 5
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
1
ATTACHMENT C AMPHIBOLE MINERAL FIBERS COMMENTS
This attachment includes PolyMets detailed comments on the issue of amphibole mineral
fibers in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS).
Background
The Background discussion in SDEIS Section 5.2.7.5.1 rightly recognizes that [r]egulatory
definitions for classifying fibers vary. In fact, Minnesota statutes and regulations do not define
the term amphibole mineral fibers. The description of [t]he State of Minnesotas definition
of amphibole mineral fibers in the Background discussion appears instead to be a reference to
the permit-specific definition of fibers included in Northshore Mining Companys Title V
permit. That definition does not have general applicability. It is also important to note, as
background, that neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has ever promulgated an ambient air fiber standard, level
or limit.
International Symposium on the Health Hazard Evaluation of Fibrous Particulates
Associated with Taconite and the Adjacent Duluth Complex
Although the SDEIS indicates that ERM conducted a literature review in 2009, it does not appear
that review included the studies resulting from the 2003 International Symposium on the Health
Hazard Evaluation of Fibrous Particulates Associated with Taconite and the Adjacent Duluth
Complex (International Symposium). The International Symposiumwhich was co-organized
by the Minnesota Department of Health, with input from a committee including members of the
MPCAand the Minnesota Department of Natural Resourcesis the most comprehensive study
of the health risks associated with taconite mining-related ambient fiber emissions ever
undertaken.
The purpose of the International Symposium is highly relevant to much of the discussion in
Section 5.2.7.5 of the SDEIS: [T]o assess the current state of knowledge concerning the health
hazards that might be associated with the ingestion and inhalation of fibrous particles produced
from the processing of taconite ore. International Symposium on the Health Hazard Evaluation
of Fibrous Particulates Associated with Taconite and the Adjacent Duluth Complex,
Introduction, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 52, No. 1, Supp.1, October 2008
(RT&P), S4. In particular, the International Symposium included [r]isk-assessment scenarios . .
. for taconite-derived fibers at environmental exposure levels related to the operation of the
Silver Bay taconite processing facility that is discussed throughout this section of the SDEIS.
Id. The conclusion of these risk assessment scenarios was that calculated risks were found to be
trivial even after it was assumed that all mineral fibers were as carcinogenic as amphibole
asbestos. Id. (emphasis added). Those studies, and that conclusion, are not adequately reflected
in the SDEIS.
Research papers presented at the International Symposiumwere peer reviewed and eventually
published in the October 2008 issue of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, a copy of
which is attached to these comments. Among the highlights of the International Symposiums
published, peer-reviewed findings are the following:
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
2
The fibers generated by Northshore Mining Companys operations in the Peter
Mitchell Mine, approximately two miles away from the NorthMet Project, are
cleavage fragments, separate and distinct from amphibole asbestos in their
morphological characteristics and, more importantly, lacking asbestos
carcinogenic properties.
1
A mineralogical survey found a tiny fraction of one percent of the total taconite
deposit mass at the Peter Mitchell Mine contained fibrous minerals, with an even
smaller percent of those mineral fragments entering the ambient air during the
mining or the milling of the taconite. RT&P, S49 (Ross 2008b). The survey
found no asbestos of any type at the mine. Id.
Even in the late 1970s, during the time of the Reserve Mining litigation, the vast
majority of the fibrous particulates collected through the monitoring process were
cleavage fragments, with less than one percent of those fibers being truly
asbestiform in nature. C. Axten and D. Foster, Analysis of Airborne and
Waterborne Particles Around a Taconite Ore Processing Facility , RT&P, S68
(Axten and Foster 2008).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) removed cleavage
fragments from its Asbestos Standard in 1994 after it reviewed morphological,
epidemiological and other data on the differences between cleavage fragments
and asbestos, concluding that exposure to non-asbestiformcleavage fragments
was not likely to produce a significant risk of developing the asbestos-related
diseases. Identification and enumeration of asbestos fibers in the mining
environment: Mission and modification to the Federal Asbestos Standard, A.
Langer, RT&P, S213 (Langer 2008).
Fibers collected during ambient air samples taken at Northshores Silver Bay
processing facility and in the town of Silver Bay are predominantly non-asbestos
ferroactinolite and grunerite fibers. RT&P, S49 (Ross 2008b). The asbestos that
was detected in the ambient sampling is consistent with background levels of
airborne asbestos reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) and EPA.
RT&P, S49 (Ross, 2008b); RT&P, S240 (Wilson 2008). In fact, the levels
1
See, e.g., Ross, M., Langer, A.M., Nord, G.L., Nolan, R.P., Lee, R.J., Van Order, D., Addison, J., The mineral
nature of asbestos, RT&P, S26 S30 (Ross, 2008a); Ross, M., Nolan, R.P., Nord, G.L., The search for fibrous
minerals within the Peter Mitchell Taconite Mine, Babbitt, Minnesota, RT&P, S43 S50 (Ross 2008b); Gamble,
J.F., Gibbs, G.W., An evaluation of the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma from exposure to amphibole cleavage
fragments, RT&P, S154 S186 (Gamble 2008); Addison, J., McConnell, E.E. A reviewof carcinogenicity studies of
asbestos and non-asbestos tremolite and other amphiboles, RT&P, S187 S199 (Addison 2008); Mossman, B.T.,
Assessment of the pathogenic potential of asbestiform vs. nonasbestiformparticulates (cleavage fragments) in vitro
(cell or organ culture) models and bioassays, RT&P, S200 S203 (Mossman 2008); Wilson, R., McConnell, E.E.,
Ross, M., Axten, C.W., Nolan, R.P., Risk assessment due to environmental exposures to fibrous particulates
associated with taconite ore, RT&P, S232 S245 (Wilson 2008). See also, Ilgren, E.B., The biology of cleavage
fragments: A brief synthesis and analysis of current knowledge, Indoor and Built Environment, October 2004, 343-
356.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
3
observed in Silver Bay are at what WHO considers the lowend of
background levels for airborne asbestos. RT&P, S240 (Wilson 2008).
Even if the all of the fibers detected in Silver Bay had been asbestos, the
monitored levels were at least 700 times lower than the current permissible
exposure level for asbestos. RT&P, S325 (Wilson 2008).
This peer-reviewed analysis of the risks associated with ambient fiber emissions associated
with the nearby Peter Mitchell Mine should be incorporated into the Final EISs discussion of
amphibole mineral fibers. For example, where the SDEIS mentions that the Peter Mitchell Mine
and the Silver Bay processing plant have been associated with releases of amphibole mineral
fibers (5-438), it should be noted that peer-reviewed risk assessments of those releases indicate
that they present a trivial risk to human health.
Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study
The SDEIS properly acknowledges the ongoing University of Minnesota-led Taconite Workers
Health Study (TWHS), including its finding that worker mortality is primarily due to commercial
asbestos exposure, rather than exposure to the minerals being mined. (5-439, 5-440). The
TWHS also contains several other findings that support the conclusion that ambient fiber
emissions pose no threat to the health and safety of mine workers or the general public:
Current workplace dust exposure levelswhich by their nature would be higher than
community ambient levelsare considered safe. Minnesota Taconite Workers Health
Study: Annual Report to the Legislature, dated April 19, 2013 (TWHS 2013 Report),
Executive Summary, p. 5; Minnesota Taconite Workers Health Study: Public
Presentation, Mountain Iron, Minnesota, April 12, 2013 (TWHS 2013 Presentation), slide
# 21.
Mesothelioma and lung cancer rates among iron ore workers in Zone 4the easternmost
portion of the Iron Range, which includes the NorthMet Project areaare comparable to
rates within the far western Zone 1. The highest rates for mesothelioma and lung cancer
are found in Zone 2, which is also far west of the NorthMet Project, outside the Duluth
Complex. TWHS 2013 Report, Section II, Table 4, p. 30; Section III, Tables 1 and 2.
A respiratory health study found no increased rates of mesothelioma or lung cancer
among the spouses of iron ore workers. Because spouses would likely have more
exposure than those in the communities, this finding suggests individuals living in the
communities in close proximity to the mining operations would not be expected to have
higher amounts of dust-related respiratory disease TWHS 2013 Report, Section IV, p.
45 (Emphasis added). See also TWHS 2013 Presentation, slides # 20, 47.
Ambient air samples taken at five Mesabi Iron Range (MIR) communities, including
Babbitt and Silver Bay, registered total particulate matter (TPM), PM
10
and PM
2.5
levels
that averaged one-to-two orders of magnitude lessthan the applicable national or
Minnesota ambient air quality standard for those pollutants. TWHS 2013 Report, Section
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
4
V, pp. 50, 54; TWHS 2013 Presentation, slides #23, 65, 66. The community averages for
TPM and PM
2.5
are particularly significant because they remained one-to-two orders of
magnitude belowthe applicable ambient air quality standards, even during active taconite
processing or mining. TWHS 2013 Report, p. 54.
Particulate levels (PM
1
, PM
2.5
, PM
10
and TPM) increased slightly during plant or mine
activity, but the increase was not statistically significant as compared to times of plant or
mine inactivity. TWHS 2013 Report, p. 57; TWHS 2013 Presentation, slide #69.
NoasbestiformElongateMineral Particleshavebeenidentifiedtodatein anyof the
MI R communities, including Babbitt and Silver Bay. TWHS 2013 Report, p. 57; TWHS
2013 Presentation, slide #65.
Particulate matter concentrations in the MIR communities were comparable to those of
the two northeast Minnesota background sites (Ely and Duluth), and were lower in all
cases compared to concentrations in Minneapolis. TWHS 2013 Report, p. 56; TWHS
2013 Presentation, slides #23, 65.
This study further buttresses the conclusion that the release of amphibole mineral fibers from
mining presents a trivial risk to human health.
Conclusions
The SDEIS accurately states that the probability of amphibole asbestos being released to the
air as a result of the NorthMet Project is very low. 5-440. Based on the evidence from the
International Symposium and the TWHS, it is also accurate to state that, in the extremely
unlikely event of an amphibole mineral fiber release, those fibers would present a trivial risk to
human health.
For this reason, PolyMet recommends removing from the Final EIS statements indicating that the
release of amphibole mineral fibers . . . could propose a potential public health risk of uncertain
magnitude (SDEIS at 5-439) or that there remains an uncertain level of potential health risk
from airborne amphibole fibers for the NorthMet Project Prosed Action (SDEIS 5-440). Those
statements ignore the evidence discussed above. It would be more appropriate to state that the
available scientific evidence, including the evidence from the International Symposium and the
TWHS, indicates that amphibole fibers from the NorthMet Project will not present a significant
risk to human health.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
1
ATTACHMENT D CUMULATIVE IMPACTS COMMENTS
While it is clear that the co-lead agencies have carefully examined the cumulative impacts of the
NorthMet Project Proposed Action and the Land Exchange Proposed Action, PolyMet believes
that the explanation of that analysis could be strengthened by providing more detail and clearer
language throughout Chapter 6. In particular, the presentation of the cumulative impacts
analysis can be strengthened by: (1) clarifying the difference between a reasonably foreseeable
project and a speculative project; (2) using the term no significant cumulative impact when
minor impacts are expected; (3) explicitly incorporating the analyses in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5;
and (4) providing a more detailed explanation of how the assessment area was determined for
each resource. These recommendations are discussed in more detail below.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
Acumulative impact is defined as the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions. 40 C.F.R. 1508.7. Whether an action is reasonably foreseeable naturally
plays a critical role in the cumulative impacts analysis. But because neither NEPA nor the CEQ
regulations define that term, agencies must make their own determinations about what projects
are reasonably foreseeable.
Courts have held that a project is reasonably foreseeable if it is sufficiently likely to occur that a
person of ordinary prudence would take it into account. Arkansas Wildlife Federation v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engrs, 431 F.3d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir. 2005). An agency need not speculate
about all conceivable impacts; they need not discuss undevelopedbut contemplatedprojects
where not enough information is available to give meaningful consideration to the project. See
Environmental Protection Information Center v. U.S. Forest Service, 451 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th
Cir. 2006). Many courts accordingly have held contemplated projects to be speculative where
the action has yet to develop into a proposal. See, e.g., Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
Partnership v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Environmental Protection Info. Center,
451 F.3d 1005; Airport Inpact Relief, Inc. v. Wykle, 192 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 1999).
U.S. Forest Service NEPA regulations define reasonably foreseeable actions as those federal
or nonfederal activities not yet undertaken, for which there are existing decisions, funding, or
identified proposals. 36 C.F.R. 220.3. An identified proposal means the Forest Service has
a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of
accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated. 220.4(a)(1).
The SDEIS appears to have used the Forest Service regulations as a model for its definition of a
reasonably foreseeable action. PolyMet agrees with this approach and believes that the Forest
Service regulations provide an accurate description of reasonably foreseeable that can be
applied easily and understandably to the cumulative impact analysis for the NorthMet project.
Those regulations can be concisely summarized as follows:
For the purposes of this assessment, an action is reasonably foreseeable if it is
included in approved planning documents and has approved funding, is permitted,
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
2
or has a currently active federal or state permit or site plan application under
review. Projects without funding or a permit or site plan application under review
are in the initial stages of development and do not have enough information to
allow for meaningful consideration. These projects are considered speculative.
Section 6.2.2.1.21 (Speculative Actions) should reiterate that these actions have not been
considered in the cumulative analysis because not enough information is available at this time to
allow for meaningful consideration of impacts. In addition, the basis for the determination that
each of these projects is speculative should be stated clearly. For example, where the SDEIS
states that a company is proposing a project, it should also clearly state that either funding has
not been procured or that an application has not yet been submitted to the relevant federal or
state agencies.
Finally, the criteria should be applied consistently throughout the cumulative impacts. For
example, the SDEIS states that the United Taconite expansion/Highway 53 relocation is a
speculative action. However, the SDEIS also acknowledge that a DEIS for the relocation is
expected in the next several months. Because the Highway 53 relocation appears to meet the
reasonably foreseeable criteria, its impacts should be considered in the FEIS.
No Significant Cumulative Impact
In several places throughout the Chapter 6, the SDEIS concludes that the NorthMet project will
have no cumulative impact on a specific resource. However, the corresponding section
evaluating that resource in Chapter 5 shows a small, but insignificant, impact. In these
situations, it is confusing to state that the NorthMet project will have no cumulative impact,
which suggests that the project will not have any cumulative impact at all. Rather, it is more
appropriate to state that the NorthMet project will not have a significant cumulative impact.
For example, on page 6-29, the SDEIS states that [s]ince the NorthMet Project Proposed Action
and other cumulative projects contributions would not cause or increase an exceedance of the
water quality evaluation criteria, cumulative effects are not expected. However, finding no
exceedance is not technically the same as finding no impact. Here, it would be more accurate,
and in keeping with the analysis in other parts of the SDEIS, to conclude that there would be no
significant cumulative impact on water quality.
Similarly, the SDEIS concludes that there will be no cumulative impact on recreational and
visual resources. It bases this conclusion on the fact that there are no significant cumulative
impacts on individual specific resources that factor in to the assessment of recreational and visual
resources (such as air quality, wetlands, etc.). The phrasing used implies that the co-leads have
analyzed the effects on recreational and visual resources from impacts to these specific resources
individually, rather than collectively. PolyMet suggests clarifying that the agencies have
analyzed whether the impacts on these resources, although insignificant when considered
individually, would have any impact on recreational and visual resources when combined and
has concluded that there would be no significant impact.
PolyMet Comments
March 13, 2014
3
Incorporating Chapters 4 and 5
As noted above, the cumulative impacts assessment must look at all past, present and reasonably
foreseeable actions. In Section 6.2.2, the SDEIS states that [e]xisting conditions that may be
related to past or present actions on the specific environmental resources are fully described in
their respective section in Chapter 4 and the direct and indirect impacts of the NorthMet
Proposed Action are described in Chapter 5. While PolyMet agrees that it is sufficient to rely
on analysis performed elsewhere in the SDEIS, and that it would be unnecessary to include that
analysis verbatim in Chapter 6, PolyMet recommends providing references to the specific
sections or subsections in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 where the reader can find the basis for the
conclusions made on each specific resource in Chapter 6. This relatively simple change will
increase readability and make clear the basis of the conclusions in Chapter 6.
Cumulative Effects Assessment Areas
The SDEIS should also use consistent language regarding the scope of the cumulative effects
assessment areas throughout Chapter 6. On page 6-2, the SDEIS states: For all resources, future
temporal boundaries are the expected service life of the mining activities, including closure
(years 20 to 40) and post-closure restoration (year 40 and beyond). PolyMet recommends
removing this sentence, which is not an accurate description of the temporal boundaries for all
resources. Indeed, the very next sentence on page 6-2 rightly states that temporal boundaries
for each resource are defined within the respective resources sections of this analysis. That
sentence should remain as the sole, accurate explanation of temporal boundaries.
CEQs guidance on considering cumulative impacts provides the following steps for determining
the scope of the cumulative impacts analysis:
1) Determine the area that will be affected by the proposed Project. This is the project
impact zone.
2) Make a list of resources within that zone that could be affected by the proposed action.
3) Determine the geographic areas occupied by those resources outside of the project impact
zone. In most cases, the largest of these areas will be the appropriate area for the analysis
of cumulative impacts.
Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act at 15 (Jan. 1997).
The SDEIS appears to have followed this CEQ guidance in setting the scope of cumulative
impacts. PolyMet recommends, however, more clearly providing the basis for the geographic
and temporal scope in each resource-specific section within Chapter 6.

Final SDEIS Comments From PolyMet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final SDEIS Comments From PolyMet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PolyMet Mining Comments on the

Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

You might also like