2 2% _unren states envinoNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 = REGION 5 cot EHIEACO, IL 00604-3590 WAR 13 2014 WW-161 Mr, Douglas Bruner US, Army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District 180 Sth Street Eas, Suite 700 St, Paul, Minnesota 55101-1678 Re: Supplemental Public Notice No. MVP-1999-5528-JK, Polymet Mining Ine. Dear Mr, Bruner: ‘The U.S, Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the above referenced Supplemental Public Notice, pursuant to our authorities under Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (CWA). ‘The applicant, Polymet Mining Ine, proposes to discharge fill material into wetlands adjacent to the Partridge and Embarrass rivers to facilitate the construction and operation of an open pit mine. The proposal also includes impacts associated with Dunka Road, the tility corridor, the Colby Lake water pipeline corridor, and the ralroad connection corridor between the mine site and the plant site, At the plant sit, the proposal i to construct a processing facilities area, a tailings basin, and a hydrometallurgical facility Ina letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St Paul District (Corps) dated June 9, 2005, EPA formally objecied othe issuance ofa CWA §404 Penmit based on the significance of wlverse pacts on the aquatic environment, insufficient information on alternatives, impact avoidance and minimization, and compensatory mitigation. Since 2005, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the U-S. Forest Serves, and the Cops have undergone the proces of writing an Environmental impact Statement (EIS) pursuant tothe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). During te process of developing the Daft and Supplemental Draft Environmental Innpact Statements (DEIS and SDEIS), the Polymet Mine project has evolved, and the proposed direct impacts have been reduced from 1,257 ta 912 acres of wetlands, Other positive changes to the project include raducing the permanent mine ste fotpriny, increasing the compensatory ‘mitigation ratio fom 1 to .S:, and adding in-watershed mitigation tothe proposal ‘The CWA §404 application references the DEIS and SDEIS documents when describing compliance with the CWA §404(bX1) Guidelines (the Guidelines). Because the DEIS and 'SDEIS are subject to change based on public and agency comments, EPA carat determine ‘whether the project complies with the Guidelines. EPA recommends that the Corps not issue the ‘CWA §404 permit until the Final EIS is completed or the application is amended to bea standalone document, and compliance with the Guidelines can be determined. Given EPA's ‘extensive involvement inthe review ofthe proposed Polymet Mining project, we request the‘opportunity to review the Corps final permit evaluation and draft Record of Decision to assess ‘compliance with the Guidelines prio to permit issuance. EPA’s detailed comments and remaining concerns regarding the ahove referenced Supplemental Public Notice and CWA $404 application are enclosed, “Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Supplemental Public Notice. EPA will continue to work with the Corps fo adress our remaining concerns and information needs. If ‘you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Melanie Burdick at 312-886-2255. Director, Water Division Enclosure‘EPA Detailed Comments: ‘Supplemental Public Notice No, MVP-1999-5528-JKA, Polymet Mining Alternatives Analysis: ‘The altematives analysis in the application references the 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 2013 Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS), but does not include the necessry detail to determine thatthe preferred allematve is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practcable Altemative (LEDPA). Since the DEIS was published in 2009, the projet has evolved and many altematives have been eliminated. Chapter 6 in the application describes some of those alternatives a they relate to direct wetland impacts; it is not a comprehensive Fist of alternatives, and itdocs not consider indirect impacts to wetlands and steams. EPA recommends thatthe applicant develop a table describing all alternatives considered during the environmental review process (e.g, mine methods, mine configuration, tilings processing options). “The table would assist EPA in determining whether or not the preferred alternative is the LEDPA. ‘The table should also include the reasons each alternative was eliminated, including references, and the potential direet and indirect effeets to wetlands and steams. Indirect Impacts Assessment: ‘© The application does not provide a quantitative assessment of al indirect impacts (except for fragmentation impacts). We recognize thatthe heterogeneity ofthe project ste and ‘the complexity ofthe wetlands and hydrology make it difficult to quantify indirect impact, but we recommend tht specific impacts to wetlands within the mine ste be identified to the extent possible. The application should better estimate the changes in functions and values at wetlands, especially those surrounded by mine features. + Specifically, EPA is concerned that there willbe indirect impacts to remaining wetland areas in Welands Nos. 33, 45, 48, 57, 68, 101, 88, 96, and 107, Indivect impacts in ‘those wetland areas will include habit fragmentation, divisions in vegetative ‘communities, andthe general loss of functions in wetlands that are separated from ‘adjacent wetlands and made smaller by mine features. Specific compensatory mitigation should be proposed for all losses of wetland functions (including identification of ratios and site locations). ‘+ Large Figure 9 and 10 and Large Table in the application highlight wetland areas atthe rine and plant sites where the proposed mine features would indirectly impact wetlands Uy fhagnicwation. Conpensstory mitigation is proposed for those areas, Page 3 ofthe ‘Wetland Analysis Workplan (Attachment B) gives a brief description of how fragmented ‘wetlands were identified, but the application should also describe the impact thresholds and how the fragmentation impact criteria were developed, ‘Monitoring for Indirect Impacts to Wetlands and Streams: Page 58 of the application states that the purpose ofthe indirect impacts analysis to inform the monitoring plan for indirect wetland impacts. The application should include ‘a description of how the impacts analysis will be used to ensure that indirect impacts areavoided, minimized, and mitigated. Section 11- inthe application implies that the indirect impact monitoring plan will focus on wetlands that are under threat by multiple indirect impset factors (Table [1-1 this is nota valid approach because even wetlands (hat are under risk of one factor (such as only drawdown or only decreased water quality) ‘would result in a loss of wetland function. We recommend more comprehensive monitoring for indirect impacts a the plant and mine ste. ‘The application docs not describe monitoring for stream impacts surrounding the project. areas, We recommend thatthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Cops) require ‘moniioring for indirect impacts wo headwater steams surrounding the site as well as impacts to wetlands. ‘There is a potential for indirect impacts to wetlands, Spring Mine Creek, and Spring Mine Lake on the eastside ofthe tailings basin, but no monitoring sites are proposed for that area. Wetland and stream monitoring sites should be required forthe eastside ofthe tailings basin Wetland Hydrology Monitoring: Section 17.1 ofthe application describes that wetland monitoring wells 1,43, 6,10, 12, 15, and 21 are “being removed because they are either within the direct project impacts or areas where n0 potential indirect impacts are anticipated”. Figure 16 shows Wells 4a, 6, 10, 12, and 15 just outside the project boundary and between mine features and Yelps (Crook and the Partridge River. These wells are in wetland ateas that would likely be ‘impacted by adjacent mine features because of ther close proximity to the mine features and wetland azeas, For 2 more comprehensive impacts analysis, we recommend that the ‘applicant continues to monitoring tthe exiting wells where they are ouside the direct ‘mine impact locations. Because there are baseline hydrologic deta at these locations, changes in wetland hydrology, ifthey occur, should be evident Some wetland types, such as coniferous and open bogs, are sensitive to subtle changes in bydrology.. A 50% change in hydroperiod (the proposed impact erteria) may not be an adequate measure of adverse impacts to the welland vegetation communities. ‘The ‘applicant should include a more complete description of impact criteria and rationale for the proposed monitoring and reporting schedule. ‘Welland Vegetation Monitoring: Section 17.4 ofthe application states that wetland baseline conditions for wetland ‘wopstation will be ettablished during the first growing season after permit issuance EPA recommends thatthe Corps require baseline vegetation monitoring prior to permitted {impacts to ensure that a tue pre-impact baseline is established. ‘The vegetation monitoring is proposed for every 5 years. The basis forthe proposed monitoring frequency is not clear from the application. Effectively managing certain threats othe wetlands, such as invasive species or vegetation changes due to drawdown, ‘requires early detection, and monitoring every 5 years might not be sufficient to adequately manage the threat. EPA recommends inereasing monitoring for vegetation ‘changes to every 2 years to beter be able to identify and manage any adverse impacts to wetlands ealyAdaptive Management: “The adaptive management plan described in Section 17.8 uses a phased approach to assessing indiect impacts and providing compensatory mitigation for adverse impacts to aquatic resources, Phase Ii described broad based monitoring: while Phase II would be amore detailed assessment. In order to determine ifthe adaptive management plan is sufficient, EPA needs more information on the timing and methodology of Phases | and of the monitoring plan. EPA is concerned that Phase 1 monitoring would not be designed unless deemed necessary, and thatthe theshold for detemining a need for Phase Il is not deseribed, (Cleat impact criteria must be established and potential mitigation options must be {developed prior fo permit issuance. EPA recommends that Phase II be planned prior to permit issuance to ensure that wetland and stream impacts are no missed, ‘Cumulative Effect Assessment ‘The application lacks a description of cumulative effects to the aquatic resources within the watersheds except as they apply to wildlife corridors (Section 12.1.2.3). Cumulative ‘Wetland Impacts (Section 5.3) is included in the March 1, 2013 Wetland Data Package ‘V7, bat itis not referenced inthe application. It isnot clea if this analysis includes recently proposed projects, as it seems to be missing projects in the ion range (e MINNTAC and UTAC). The cumulative effect assessment in the application should include the most recent and comprehensive information Indirect impacts are not inchuded in the eulative impacts assessment for wetlands in the Wetlands Data Package V.7. All adverse impacts to aquatic resources should be ‘considered in this assessment “The analysis of cumulative effects in the Wetland Data Package V.7 evaluates the percentage loss ofall wetland types. Many ofthe wetlands proposed to be impacted at the Polymet site are high quality bog and forested resources, and indirect impacts of ‘mining often inelude wetland type changes due to changes in hydrology. ‘The cumulative Joss of different wetland types should also be evaluated. Mitigation: ‘The mitigation ratios proposed in the application conform tothe conditions included in ‘the Corps’ May 29, 2013 Memorandum: Application ofthe Federal Mingation Rule and ‘St Paul District Policy Guidance on Compensatory Mitigation Compensation Ratios {for Loss of Wetlands/Aquatic Resources. EPA agrees that the mitigation ratios proposed. in the Comps’ Memorandum were reasonable. ‘One concern that remsins is that no compensatory mitigation plan exists for indirect ‘impacts to wetlands and steams, Table 11-1 ofthe application indicates that more than 7,300 aeres of wetland would be potentially impacted by the proposed project. Because {nswatershed mitigation is so difficult to fin, mitigation options for indirect impacts rust be diseussed in the application EPA remains concerned that a majority ofthe compensatory mitigation for impacted ‘wetlands will occur outside the St Louis River and Lake Superior Watersheds. This 3‘constitutes a permanent loss of aquatic resources within these watersheds, EPA understands that itis difficult o find in-watershed wetland mitigation opportunities, but ‘the soon tobe implemented Northeast Minnesota Wetland Mitigation Strategy may “support the Corps ana permit applicants to beter implement a watershed approach 10 mitigation. Once implemented, EPA recommends thatthe strategy be used to find ‘additonal wetland mitigation sites within the St.Louis and Lake Superior Watersheds to ‘compensate for indirect wetland impacts atthe Polymet Site.