Cooperating Agency Comments
Tribal Cooperating Agencies
The Fond du Lac, Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands of the Lake Superior Chippewa expressed various concerns about the PolyMet SDEIS prior to its release. These concerns were not fully addressed by the Lead Agencies.
- Many of the Major Differences of Opinion between Tribal Positions and positions taken by the Lead Agencies in the PolyMet SDEIS are summarized in the attached chart contained in Chapter 8 of the PolyMet PSDEIS.
- Materials articulating and supporting tribal positions were included as a separate Tribal Positions Appendix C to the PolyMet SDEIS The Tribal Appendix C includes a detailed analysis related to water quality modeling and modeling of indirect effects of the PolyMet project on wetlands.
- Appendix C to the PolyMet SDEIS also includes a Cumulative Effects Analysis of the PolyMet project prepared in response to the preliminary SDEIS provided to Cooperating Agencies prior to its release.
During the public comment period, the Bands provided additional comments expressing their concerns both about the adequacy of the SDEIS analysis and about the adverse impacts of the PolyMet sulfide mine project.
Read comments from the following Tribal Agencies and Organizations on the PolyMet SDEIS:
- Fond du Lac Water Projects Coordinator, Environmental Department
- Grand Portage Environmental Department
- Bois Forte Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
- Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC)
- 1854 Treaty Authority
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
EPA Comments on the PolyMet SDEIS rated the PolyMet SDEIS as “Environmental Concerns – insufficient Information (EC-2)” and included “recommendations to further analyze potential impacts that have been raised by the SDEIS.” Among issues raised, the EPA concluded that mercury modeling for the PolyMet project was insufficient and “further consideration of mercury impacts is needed.”
Other Governmental Agencies
Minnesota Geological Survey Comments discuss bedrock fractures and the need for additional analysis of site geology and hydrology.
Minnesota Department of Health Comments discuss potential impacts on groundwater and state, “An HIA could provide recommendations to policy makers to support possible positive health outcomes and to mitigate or prevent possible negative health outcomes to improve the public’s health.”
Minnesota State Auditor Comments raise concerns about the adequacy of financial assurance to protect taxpayers from sulfide mining liability.