Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Id. at 3.
Id. at 1, n.1.
10
Id.
11
Climate Change Guidance at 4. Additionally, the Climate Change Guidance encourages
agencies to account for these emissions using the Federal Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which
allows for a more valid cost-benefit analysis by quantifying some of the damages caused by
projected emissions. Developed through an interagency process committed to ensuring that the
SCC estimates reflect the best available science and methodologies and used to assess the social
benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions . . . it provides a harmonized, interagency metric
that can give decision makers and the public useful information . . . Id. at 33, n.86. The SCC has
been established since 2010, and was updated in 2015 with the most current science, and your
agencies had knowledge of its promulgation and usefulness in quantifying and comparing
impacts of projected emissions.
9
12
Id. at 910.
Id. at 17 (for the purposes of NEPA, the analysis of the effects of GHG emissions is
essentially a cumulative effects analysis).
14
Id. at 11.
15
Climate Change Guidance at 11.
16
Id. at 14.
17
Id. at 15.
18
Id. at 19.
13
19
29
Id. at 124.
Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Save Lake Superior Association, Center for Biological Diversity,
Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Forest, and the Sierra Club Comments on the Supplemental
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange,
Mar. 13, 2014, at 8486 [hereinafter SOS-SLSA-CBD-FCVSF-SC SDEIS comments].
31
Id. at 154.
32
Id. at 8687.
33
Id. at 83.
34
SOS-SLSA-CBD-FCVSF-SC SDEIS comments at 8384.
35
These organizations include: Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Center for
Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, Sierra Club North Star Chapter, Friends of the Boundary
Waters Wilderness, Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness,
Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Forest, Voyageurs National Park Association, and the
National Parks Conservation Association.
36
Conservation Organizations Comments on the Supplemental Final EIS for the NorthMet
Project, Submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Dec. 21, 2015, at 7375
[hereinafter Conservation Organizations FEIS comments].
30
37
Id. at 79.
Id. at 9097.
39
Climate Change Guidance at 5.
40
Id. at 22.
41
Id. at 89.
42
Id. at 9, n.21.
43
Climate Change Guidance at 23.
38
44
Id. at 20.
Id. at 21.
46
Id. at 21.
47
Climate Change Guidance at 21.
48
MCEA SDEIS comments at 50.
49
Id. at 79
50
Id. at 11617.
51
Id. at 75.
52
MCEA SDEIS comments at 111.
53
Id. at 6 & 75.
45
and other climate impacts that could stress the aging dam over the hundreds of
years it is required to hold.
Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Save Lake Superior Association, Center for Biological
Diversity, Friends of the Cloquet Valley State Forest, and the Sierra Clubs comments on
the SDEIS regarding:
o the general failure to address and adequately analyze the impacts of climate
change across the agencies analysis, including ecosystem and airpollution
deposition impacts that are further aggravated by the NorthMet project.54
o the need to look at wetland availability in the context of climate change and how
this might have impacts, for example, on mooses thermoregulation in warm
temperatures,55 as well as a general failure to discuss impacts and cumulative
impacts on moose that will be more severely impacted by climate change.56
o the failure to properly address the habitat impacts for important species of a land
exchange,57 which also consequently omits the aggravating impacts of climate
change.
o the failure to adequately discuss cumulative impacts to listed plant species, and
the threats to these species from any and all stressors related to climate change
and the project.58
o the failure to address the climate change impacts to black spruce/jack pine
forest,59 which is both imperiled as such and as a habitat for other species.
o the lack of analysis of water fluctuations and their probable impacts on mercury
pollution in the environment, which is likely to be further impacted by climate
shifts in water availability over time.60
o the failure to assess the volume of water that will need to be treated after facility
closure, or the water quality that is likely at that time and over the hundreds of
years of treatment,61 or the project impacts on stream flow over the same time
period,62 which will be further complicated by climate change impacts to both
water quantity and quality in was that were not assessed by agencies.
Conservation Organizations comments on the FEIS regarding:
54
63
MCEAs comments on the SDEIS regarding the reviews failure to account for smelting
of ore produced at the NorthMet facility, failure to identify potential smelting locations
and assess the impacts of each location, failure to account for location-specific impacts
and to analyze potential air emissions impacts from increased smelting due to the
NorthMet project, and failure to account for the environmental impacts of transporting
NorthMets ore to a smelting facility and pollution impacts to soil and water from
smelting.74
72
Conservation Organizations comments on the FEIS regarding the failure to account for
the full life-cycle of transport, smelting, processing, use, and emissions of all these steps
as a part of the analysis of the NorthMet project.75
Much like with the emissions and climate change impacts discussed above, the Guidance and
these comments together demonstrate that the analysis in the FEIS is inadequate and your
agencies have not satisfied your duties under the CEQ NEPA regulations in reviewing a mining
projects full impacts. Until these issues are resolved with a supplemental analysis, issuing a
ROD on this FEIS would be arbitrary and capricious, and not in accordance with NEPA.
Conclusion
While the Climate Change Guidance came out recently, it does not establish new requirements,
but rather interprets and clarifies the CEQ NEPA regulations that MCEA and other parties have
relied on in pointing out your duty to fully assess greenhouse gas emissions, carbon
sequestration, alternatives, and climate change impacts in your review of the NorthMet mine
proposal. The Guidance indicates that MCEA and other organizations were correct in their
understanding of the NEPA regulations, and provides an appropriate standard for rectifying your
agencies failure to address these issues. We urge you to announce a supplemental review period,
with notice and comment periods sufficient to fully address climate change issues.
75
Doug Bru
uner and Miichael Jimen
nez
September 26, 2013
Page 13
/s/ Paul Dannicic
.
Paul Daniciic
Executive D
Director
Friends of tthe Boundaryy Waters Wiilderness
401 N. Thirrd Street, Suuite 290
Minneapoliis, MN 554001
Phone: (6122) 332-9630
paul@friendds-bwca.orgg
.
Lori Andressen
President
Save Our Skky Blue Watters
P.O. Box 36661
Duluth, MN
N 55803
Phone: (2188) 340-2451
andres01@ccharter.net
Encl.
cc:
Lisa
L Fay MNDNR
M
Div
v. of Ecological Resourcces Environm
mental Revieew Unit
EIS
E Project Manager
M
(lisaa.fay@state.mn.us)
Tom
T
Landweehr MN Department
D
of
o Natural Reesources Coommissioner
(ttom.landweh
hr@state.mn
n.us)
Jo
ohn Linc Stiine MN Pollution
P
Con
ntrol Agencyy Commissiooner
(john.stine@sstate.mn.us)
Robert
R
A. Kaaplan EPA
A Region 5 Acting
A
Regioonal Adminiistrator
(k
kaplan.roberrt@Epa.gov))