Speak Loudly for Quiet Places
Speak Loudly for Quiet Places: An Examination of Land Use Policy and the Mitigation of Acid Mine Drainage in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Watershed
(Submitted for Land Use Policy & Planning course at University of Wisconsin - Madison)
“Why do I ramble, you ask. It is in defense of the quiet places, the primitive voices only found in snowfall, the words only spoken around fires between cactus and lost ocean. Since it is in their nature to be quiet, we must make noise for these places everywhere, defending them on all fronts, for as we lose wildness, we lose vitality.” -- Ben Weaver
The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) offers freedom to those who wish to pursue an experience of expansive solitude, challenge, and a personal connection with nature. Located in northeastern Minnesota, the BWCAW encompasses over one million acres of wooded forest, lakes, wetlands and countless other ecosystems.
These unique ecosystems are home to the north country’s most charismatic species like loons, wolves, bear, moose, walleye, blueberries, red pine, and bald eagles. The diversity of life and stunning landscapes help meet the nation’s increasing demand for outdoor recreation: bird watching, hiking, hunting, fishing, canoeing, camping, and many other activities. The BWCAW is one of the most heavily visited wilderness areas in the U.S. with over 250,000 visitors annually. Most of these visitors come from outside the surrounding counties and have a remarkable economic impact on BWCAW gateway communities. The Conservation Economics Institute researched the regional economic impacts of the BWCAW and found that visitation generated over $77 million of total regional output in 2016.
In addition to the truly stunning beauty, recreational opportunities, and prosperous economic impacts, the BWCAW provides immeasurable benefits through its ecosystem services. The BWCAW protects a diversity of wildlife, improves the quality of our air, and protects watersheds that provide drinking water to many cities and rural communities. Hundreds of miles of streams and well over 1,100 lakes comprise nearly 20% of the BWCAW’s surface area.
Unfortunately, the pristine waters and biodiversity of life in the BWCAW are under the threat of sulfide mining. In recent years, several sulfide-mining companies have submitted hundreds of applications to begin mining just outside the BWCAW. These proposals have been focused on the northern tail edge of the Mesabi Iron range which extends into the BWCAW (Figure 1). While companies like Duluth Metals plan to build new mining operations, other companies like PolyMet Mining Corporation plans to expand existing mining operations to facilitate sulfide mining. One of PolyMet’s expansion proposals is located just three miles from the BWCAW. To date, there has never been a sulfide mine in Minnesota which can be contributed to the low percent (<1%) of target metal present in the sulfide ore. However, advances in ore processing technology and high metal prices mean that, for the first time ever, Minnesota’s low-grade sulfide ore could be mined profitably. Demand for these metals is high due to their use in renewable energy markets which provide rechargeable batteries, transmission, and wind turbine technology. Yet, the development of a renewable energies market should not come at the expense of our most treasured landscapes.
Sulfide mining extracts copper, nickel, and other metals from sulfide ores. This is not a problem if the rock stays in the ground, however when sulfide ore waste is brought to the surface through blasting and extraction processes, it is exposed to air and water causing a chemical reaction which forms sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid leaches metals and chemicals from mining waste and creates acid mine drainage. Consequently, the likelihood of acid mine drainage pollution is directly linked to the presence of water, which is why sulfide mining has typically been practiced in more arid climates than Minnesota’s. Yet, even in those dry areas, sulfide mining has created enormous toxic messes.
While proposed mines would be located south of the BWCAW, most mine proposals are located in the same Rainy River watershed as the BWCAW. Some sulfide mine building proposals would even place mines within existing wetlands or bogs. This news has triggered a wave of public outcry against sulfide mining outside the BWCAW. In fact, over 57,000 public comments opposing sulfide mining were submitted on the second draft of PolyMet’s environmental review, the largest number of public comments on a DNR project in Minnesota history. These fears are not unfounded as the track record of sulfide mining in water rich environments (rain or wetland) is a 100% failure rate where surface water, ground water, or both are contaminated with either acid mine drainage, toxic metals, or both. If built in the Rainy River Watershed, runoff would ultimately enter the BWCAW’s lakes, rivers, wetlands, and other water-rich environments (Figure 2).
The impacts on the BWCAW would be broad and include long-term acid and toxic metal pollution, contaminated drinking water, destruction of wildlife habitat, mercury contamination of fish and wildlife, destabilization of the regional outdoor recreation economy, and potential long-term clean-up operations which historically have fallen to taxpayers to fund.
In states like New Mexico, Montana, and Nevada, sulfide mining has contaminated thousands of streams and killed off entire ecosystems. Clean-up has cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars, frequently leading mining companies to file for bankruptcy. After which, the companies are no longer liable for clean-up, and because the financial assurance the state receives from mining companies typically only covers a fraction of the clean-up costs, these sites become the American taxpayer’s problem.
These are some of the reasons permanent land and watershed protection is required to combat the effects of sulfide mining. Efforts to reach this goal are ongoing and complex. The BWCAW is part of the Superior National Forest and is administered by the U.S. Forest Service. However, the areas which would be subject to mining are largely under state control (Figure 3). Currently, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluations of the mining companies’ Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) have prevented sulfide mining development stating, “unacceptable environmental impacts,” especially with regard to water quality. Though it is important to note that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced the EIS and approved its release.
Relying on the federal government to intervene on behalf of the BWCAW and Minnesota watersheds is dangerous as shifting political climates cannot guarantee future protections. Recognizing that the U.S. EPA was the main party responsible for preventing sulfide mining outside the BWCAW, representative Alice Hausman and Senator Jim Carlson introduced legislation in 2009 meant to achieve greater protections. The bill would have accomplished three things (1) prohibit mines that would require water treatment after closure, (2) ensure mining companies put up enough money to pay for clean-up in case of bankruptcy or mine abandonment, and (3) increased government transparency to inform citizens of mining regulation. However, the legislation was blocked from passing by intense opposition from mining companies, other pro-mining lobbyists, and pro-mining legislators.
In 2015, representative Betty McCollum also wrote a bill which sought to block nearby mining. However, the bill only covered mining on federal land within the Rainy River watershed, ignoring state and private land. The bill was toothless as it would not affect PolyMet Mining Corp, because it lies outside the nominated watershed, nor would the bill cover the two federal leases already held by Twin Metals within the Rainy River watershed. Although the bill might have had some effect on future mining proposals, it would not affect current proposals and was shortsighted in nature because it did not account for the interconnectedness of watersheds and landscapes.
Outside of Minnesota other states have found varying success with legislation related to mining:
In Wisconsin, a “Prove it First” bill passed in 1997 stating that, before opening a mine, a company must be able to point to a similar mine that has operated for 10 years without polluting and has been closed for 10 years without polluting.
In Michigan, the law says mines may not be operated in such a way that they will require “perpetual care.”
Yet critics of this legislation have pointed out one small open-pit copper sulfide mining facility which operated successfully only 140 feet from the Flambeau River in Ladysmith, Wisconsin until its closure in 1997. During its operation, all acid mine drainage was treated for water purification and the pit was backfilled with waste rock and tens of thousands of tons of limestone in order to neutralize sulfuric acid. The mine did not have any permit violations and completed its tenth year of non-pollution in 2007. Consequently, this single mine’s clean record has left the door open for future sulfide mining permit seekers in both Wisconsin and Michigan.
As is often the case with a tragedy of the commons, local municipalities in Minnesota which are not directly adjacent to the BWCAW, are in favor of mining and do not have strict sulfide mining regulations. While those benefiting from outdoor recreation and healthy downstream water quality oppose sulfide mining efforts. In order to more permanently protect the BWCAW, success may be found in the form of stricter management of the Rainy River watershed through state action in the form of stricter zoning policy in water rich environments, Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs (specifically mining rights), and public-private partnership policies where the Minnesota encourages, facilitates, and partially funds the work of private sector conservation NGOs to acquire development rights or land for permanent protection from sulfide mining development.
A more successful land use policy approach would start by focusing on achieving a quick and cheap protection in the Rainy River watershed by amending zoning regulation to disallow the operation of sulfide mines in (or near) water rich environments (‘water-rich’ and ‘near’ to be determined by an expert, but would definitely exclude sulfide mining from areas with heavy water runoff from rainfall, waterbodies, and wetlands). This would require Minnesota’s state government to establish zoning mandates which would be implemented by local zoning boards. Though this may not be a permanent solution, as the implementation of zoning regulation and the zones themselves often shift in different political climates, it would give time for other policies to be properly planned, funded, and established.
A second wave of protection policy would be aimed at creating a buffer area around the BWCAW in the Rainy River watershed. It would be accomplished using two strategies. The first is developing a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program, specifically for purchasing sulfide mining rights. This would be coupled with public-private partnership policies where Minnesota encourages, facilitates, and partially funds work of private sector conservation NGOs to acquire development rights, easements prohibiting sulfide mining or watershed contamination, or acquisition of fee simple parcels of land. All with the goal of preventing sulfide mining in the Rainy River Watershed.
It would be important to be aware of the effects on the most impacted parties and plan accordingly. For example, support of social programs would be beneficial in mining towns along the Mesabi Range. Many of these towns suffer from high poverty rates and a depressed lagging economy as a result of the instability and volatility of mining. Programs aimed at assisting miners with development of long term career alternatives would help alleviate pressure for new mining operations in the area in the long term. Additionally, as a consequence of mounting tension between mining advocates and environmental advocates, it would be important to work with locals to develop the community programs and it would be critical provide ample financial incentive for the purchase of mining rights or construction of easements by NGOs when necessary.
On the other hand, much of the Minnesota’s identity and culture is linked to clean water and the rugged wilderness of the North, which means it may be possible to seek funding for these programs through a small state-wide tax or through utilization of over $1 billion of revenue available in Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Funds generated by the Minnesota State Lottery. Additionally, dozens of NGOs focused on protection of the BWCAW already exist and would be able to work effectively on a local scale to manage landowner relationships.
Minnesotan’s face the threat of undrinkable water, destruction of the BWCAW and its regional economy, and long-term pollution requiring taxpayer dollars for cleanup. Current legislation has not done enough to protect fragile watersheds from the effects of sulfide mining. Thus, quick acting zoning regulations followed by the permanent protection of land through PDR programs and public-private partnerships are required.
(Figure 1. Iron ranges of the western Lake Superior region. Adapted from University of Minnesota Duluth Precambrian Research Center website, 2010)
(Figure 2. Sulfide Mining Activity in Northeastern Minnesota. Extracted from Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Sulfide Mining website, 2014)
(Figure 3. Sulfide Mining Non-Ferrous Mineral Leases and Exploration in Northeastern Minnesota. Extracted from Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy website, 2017)
Bibliography
Colonel Jon L. Christensen. 2010. “EPA Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement-PolyMet.” United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Evan E. Hjerpe. 2017. “Regional Economic Impacts of Boundary Waters Wilderness Visitors.” Conservation Economics Institute. http://www.friends-bwca.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-BWCAW-Economics-Report.pdf.
Fox, Porter. 2016. “On the Water, and Into the Wild.” The New York Times, October 21, sec. Travel. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/travel/boundary-waters-minnesota-canada-into-the-wild.html.
Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. 2017. “Sulfide Mining: Myth vs. Fact.” Accessed August 10. http://www.friends-bwca.org/issues/sulfide-mining/myth-vs-fact/.
Jim Miller. 2017. “Geology, Mineralogy, and Genesis or Precambrian Iron Formations.” University of Minnesota Duluth: Precambrian Research Center. Accessed August 10. http://www.d.umn.edu/prc/workshops/F10workshop.html.
Josephine Marcotty. 2015. “McCollum Bill Would Restrict Mining near Minnesota’s BWCA.” StarTribune, April 14. http://www.startribune.com/mccollum-bill-would-restrict-mining-near-minnesota-s-bwca/299778801/.
Matt McKinney. 2015. “Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Land Dispute Sees Early Signs of Progress.” Star Tribune, June 6. http://www.startribune.com/boundary-waters-canoe-area-wilderness-land-dispute-sees-early-signs-of-progress/306381601/.
MNCenter. 2015. “Conservation Organizations’ Comments on the Supplemental Final EIS for the NorthMet Project.”
NCCO. 2017. “BWCA Wildlife and Plants.” Boundary Waters Outfitters: North Country Canoe Outfitters. Accessed August 10. http://boundarywaters.com/boundary-waters/bwca-wildlife-plants/.
Newsweek Staff. 2007. “Trouble in the Boundary Waters.” Newsweek, October 4. http://www.newsweek.com/trouble-boundary-waters-103209.
“Outdoor Recreation Drives Significant Economic Impact in Northern Minnesota According to Regional Study.” 2017. Accessed August 10. http://www.friends-bwca.org/2017/02/outdoor-recreation-drives-significant-economic-impact-in-northern-minnesota-according-to-regional-study/.
Rolf Westgard. 2013. “Mining in Minnesota -- Regulation Needed.” Star Tribune. June 20. http://www.startribune.com/mining-in-minnesota-regulation-needed/212411021/.
Spencer Phillips. 2012. “The Boundary Waters Canoe Area….Wealth Generator.” Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness.
“Sulfide Mining.” 2017. Accessed August 10. http://www.friends-bwca.org/issues/sulfide-mining/.
“Sulfide Mining in Minnesota.” 2017. Mining Truth. Accessed August 10. http://www.miningtruth.org/sulfide-mining-minnesota/.
The National Atlas of the United States of America. 2017. “Minnesota Federal Lands and Indian Reservations.” U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed August 10. https://www.worldofmaps.net/typo3temp/images/minnesota-federal-lands-indian-reservations-map.png.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2016. “Obama Administration Takes Steps to Protect Watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area,” December 15. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2016/12/15/obama-administration-takes-steps-protect-watershed-boundary-waters.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2017. “Superior National Forest - The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.” Accessed August 10. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/superior/specialplaces/?cid=stelprdb5202169.
Water Legacy. 2013. “Cumulative Effects Assessment to Lake Superior Basin.” December 14. http://waterlegacy.org/CumulativeEffects-Mining.
“Watershed Basins Map: Minnesota DNR.” 2017. Accessed August 10. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watersheds/map.html.
“What Is Sulfide Mining? | Mining Action Group.” 2017. Accessed August 10. http://savethewildup.org/issues/sulfide-mining-101/.
“Why Wilderness Matters | Boundary Waters Info.” 2017. Accessed August 10. https://www.piragis.com/boundary-waters-info/why-wilderness-matters.html.