INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
INTERNATIONAL LAKE OF THE WOODS BASIN WATER QUALITY PLAN OF STUDY (“Final Report, November 2014”)
Comments Respectfully Submitted by
Reid Carron
3100 Hartley Point Road
Ely, Minnesota 55731
(Member, Community Advisory Group, International Rainy-Lake of the Woods Watershed Board)
Thanks to the Plan of Study Team for preparing a very good and useful Water Quality Plan of Study, and thanks to the International Joint Commission for this opportunity to comment on the WQPOS Final Report.
My comments are as follows:
P. iv—Recommendations for Immediate Action. I suggest that Project 24, Vulnerability Assessment of Border Waters to Contamination from Mining, be added to the Recommendations for Immediate Action. Among the many threats to the water quality and ecological integrity of the Basin, the threat posed by hard-rock, sulfide-ore mining for copper, nickel, gold, and other metals is particularly potent because the damage such mining causes (e.g., destruction of terrestrial watershed areas; disruption of groundwater flow; release of acid mine drainage, heavy metals, and sulfates into groundwater and surface waters) is largely irreversible within any reasonably comprehensible period of time. A number of mining projects are proposed in the Basin and in the adjacent Lake Superior Basin. A Vulnerability Assessment at an early date is important so that citizens are not presented with a fait accompli before the full environmental, economic, and social impact of such mining is understood.
I believe it is important to emphasize that a mere monitoring regime, no matter how sophisticated, is inadequate. Monitoring simply tells us that the horse is out of the barn. Massive, long-lasting, irreparable, unstoppable damage to ecosystems may occur before even a sophisticated monitoring regime issues an alert.
P. 89—Project 21 Synthesis Report on Contaminants in Water, Aquatic Sediment, and Fish.
In the third paragraph under “Methodology,” the listing of mining contaminants should include acidity as well as metals and sulfates. Increased acidification of waters resulting from sulfuric acid runoff from exposed sulfide-bearing rock is particularly detrimental to game fish.
Pp. 89-92— Project 21 Synthesis Report on Contaminants in Water, Aquatic Sediment, and Fish. This is a relatively minor point, but one I believe to be worth raising. The discussion of sulfates seems to compartmentalize separately airborne sulfates (“deposition”) and sulfates entering water as a result of mining or other activity. In isolation, some language seems to suggest that the problem is diminishing (“Reductions in acid rain pollutants (sulfate and hydrogen ion) likely reduce the amount of mercury methylation within aquatic ecosystems, thus potentially less methylmercury is available for bioaccumulation in the food web . . . .” p. 90). However, sulfates continue to enter the Basin as a result of mining activity. My understanding is that sulfates from whatever source are detrimental because of their contribution to the methylation of mercury and their deleterious impact on wild rice. If it were possible to make it clearer that total sulfate load is the issue I think it would be helpful.
Pp. 96—3.4.2 Assessment of Potential Contamination from Mining and Petroleum Transport. The second paragraph in this section begins with this sentence: “Both provincial/state and federal governments impose stringent requirements for proposed mining projects to minimize potential environmental impacts.” Some may question whether this statement is entirely correct with respect to the State of Minnesota’s regulation of mining. It is reported that every taconite mine in Minnesota is either in violation of its water discharge permit or has received a variance to allow discharges in excess of its permit. Minnesota withdrew from a St. Louis River mercury study with the United States EPA, the State of Wisconsin, and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa because, some believe, the study would make clear that taconite mining is largely responsible for elevated levels of sulfates and, thus, methylmercury in that river. Other examples also exist.
P. 97—Project 24, Vulnerability Assessment of Border Waters to Contamination
from Mining. This section contains the following:
It is emphasized that although this project will examine the cumulative effects of basin-wide mining activities, the focus of the cumulative effects (impairments) will be on international border waters—that is, the large border lakes and Rainy River. Other agencies have jurisdiction over waters contained entirely within one nation’s border, and this project will not attempt to assess the potential for impairment of waters that are not international border waters.
I believe that I understand the intent of this language, and I respectfully suggest that the second sentence quoted does not accurately state the intent of the Plan of Study Team. For example, Basswood Lake is a large border lake lying partly within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota and partly within Quetico Provincial Park in Ontario. Basswood would likely be impaired by acid mine drainage, heavy metals, and sulfates if copper/nickel mining were to be allowed, as proposed, along the South Kawishiwi River and Birch Lake, both of which lie entirely within Minnesota. To evaluate the potential impairment of Basswood, one would need to assess the potential for impairment of the South Kawishiwi and Birch Lake, as well as White Iron Lake and Fall Lake, all of which lie entirely within Minnesota but which are also directly upstream from Basswood. That is, it is not possible to know the potential for impairment of Basswood without knowing the potential for impairment of certain waters that do not happen to be international border waters. Perhaps this language could be added to the second sentence quoted: “except to the extent that such waters are upstream from large border lakes.”
Pp. 97-98—Project 24, Vulnerability Assessment of Border Waters to Contamination
from Mining. Any contributions to the Vulnerability Assessment by the Natural Resources Research Institute of the University of Minnesota-Duluth should be intensively scrutinized, because some elements of NRRI have received very significant financial support from the mining industry, including organizations and companies proposing sulfide-ore copper nickel mining.
P. 100—Project 26, Mining Effects Science Workshop.
Stakeholder group: I recommend that the stakeholder group be expanded to include parks and wilderness user groups (e.g., Voyageur Outward Bound School, Wilderness Inquiry) and park and wilderness-edge businesses (e.g., outfitters, resorts, lodges, fishing guides, dogsledders).
Advocacy: I understand the reason for the Plan of Study Team’s admonition that advocacy should be kept out of the Workshop process, but I fear that is an unrealistic goal. Any information that the mining industry presents will be couched in terms most favorable to the industry, and other stakeholders will also undoubtedly seek to present their information in the best light to support their position. I think a more realistic and ultimately more useful admonition would be to remind participants that different stakeholders have different interests, and to demand that information presented be accurate.