Citizens for a Responsible Mine in Marathon

What kind of environmental assessment do you want?

2011-05-04T06:42:00.000-07:00

Public Information Session concerning the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Stillwater-Marathon PGM-Cu mine

May 5, 2011, 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm.

St John's United Church

Hosted by Citizens for a Responsible Mine in Marathon

The invitees include: all publicly-funded participants in Phase 1 of the EA including:
Citizens for a Responsible Mine in Marathon, Environment North, Great Lakes
United, Marathon Economic Development Corporation, Métis Nation of Ontario ,
MiningWatch Canada, Northwatch , Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation, Ontario
Coalition of Aboriginal Peoples, Ontario Nature, Pic Mobert First Nation, Pays Plat
First Nation, Red Sky Métis Independent Nation.

The evening will include:

The opportunity for introductions from all of the funded groups describing their interest in the project
Q & A session for members of the public to share viewpoints and ask questions of the invited groups.

The Citizens for a Responsible Mine (CRM) supports a rigourous environmental assessment of the proposed mine in which the short- and long-term economic, environmental and social costs and benefits are given careful consideration. Our hope is that an appropriately mandated Review Panel and a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement will lead to the approval of a safe, clean and sustainable mine that benefits this and future generations in our region.

Environmental Assessment takes a big step forward today

2011-03-25T10:02:00.000-07:00

Winter hikers/anglers at Bamoos Lake, near proposed mine site, March 2011

The CEAA issued a news release today announcing a harmonized federal-provincial panel review. Entitled "Harmonization Agreement to Establish a Joint Review Panel" the document includes as an appendix the draft "Terms of Reference" for the as yet un-named review panel members. Also made available today are the draft "Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines".

While these documents were being drafted, the Citizens for a Responsible Mine, the Ojibways of the Pic River First Nation and the Lake Superior Binational Forum submitted to the CEAA suggestions for key elements for inclusion.

With the benefit of participant funding from the CEAA, the Citizens for a Responsible Mine has hired an expert consultant to meet with our membership and to review and comment on these documents.

The period for public comment on the draft panel "Terms of Reference" and "Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines" ends on May 9, 2011.

All of the above-mentioned documents, including letters to the CEAA from stakeholder groups, are available through the above link or here:

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/05/documents-eng.cfm?evaluation=54755

New developments - preparing for the review panel

2011-01-20T15:36:00.000-08:00

After reviewing Marathon PGM's Project description, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) advised the Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Jim Prentice, that the project carried with it significant environmental risks. The Minister then referred the proposed PGM mine to a review panel of independent experts. One significant factor in this decision was a letter from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). The letter can be found here (link to pdf); here is an excerpt:

As requested, DFO has conducted an initial analysis of the potential environmental effects on fish, fish habitat and aquatic species at risk related to the Project. In summary, given the large scale of the Project, the likely impacts to as many as 24 water bodies, and uncertainties with respect to the success of mitigation and compensation for fish habitat impacts, it is DFO’s expert opinion that the Project as proposed in the July 2010 Addendum to the Project Description poses a high risk of potentially significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat.

As a group, Citizens for a Responsible Mine applied for funding through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Participant Funding Program. If granted, the funding will be used to hire an independent consultant to review the ‘Terms of Reference’—the guidelines that the panel will need to use to conduct its review of the project.

We are looking for a few people to put together an informative poster about key concerns related to the proposed mine. We have members willing to provide written content and photos. We need someone with good visual presentation skills (digital or conventional) to create an appealing poster that effectively communicates the information to members of the public who see the poster (at the library or the mall etc.). Can you help out? If so, please send us a message.

There is a significant amount of concern all around the Great Lakes about the impact of mining on water quality. For more information, check out this excellent series of articles detailing how economic and environmental concerns associated with metal mining are playing out in other jurisdictions in the upper Great Lakes region.

What questions do you have about the project? Please send them to us and we’ll try to find the answers. Please encourage others to join our Citizens for a Responsible Mine Facebook group so that we can hear from as many people as possible about this project.

The rights to this project were recently purchased by Montana-based Stillwater Mining Company.

Water quality is a significant concern

2010-07-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

With the lake dumping option now off the table, we can suppose that, with an effective buffer zone around the lake, Bamoos Lake's native stocks of lake trout and brook trout may survive for another 10,000 years, and beyond.

Our experience with Marathon PGM has brought with it valuable lessons in advocacy, environmental science, Canadian law and the best (and worst) practices of the Canadian mining industry. Moreover, we saw how corporate decision making, weighted heavily in the interests of shareholders - in this case the inexpensive dumping of mine waste into Bamoos - can potentially lead to practices that are in sharp conflict with the interests of the local citizens who depend on a healthy environment.

Members of our group will continue to support a rigourous environmental assessment of the operational and closure plans of the mine. We look forward to seeing Marathon PGM's revised proposals for managing millions of tonnes of potentially toxic mine waste.

Angler Creek.

Because the mine site is so close to Lake Superior, discharge from the tailings areas will have a short run - approximately 6 km - over rocky, high-gradient streams (Angler, Hare, etc) with virtually no mixing before entering the big lake. These streams have no capacity to chemically buffer acid run-off. Indeed the stream bed itself could become a source of metal contamination should the pH of the stream flow drop significantly.

The lower reaches of these particular streams are important nursery areas for steelhead, coaster brook trout and other migratory salmonids. Young fish depend on a diversity of aquatic invertebrates - mayflies, midges, caddisflies, etc - species that are acutely sensitive to impaired water quality. In this way, the health of the wider Lake Superior ecosystem is critically connected to water quality in its tributary streams and rivers.

Dragonfly (Cordulegaster maculata) nymphs sampled from Hare Creek
We will work to ensure that, within the environmental assessment process, the value of these streams is appropriately recognized and that Marathon PGM takes appropriate measures to mitigate against harmful effects during and beyond the 11 year life of the mine.

Young brook trout

Resources:

Learn more about Canadian Metal Mining Effluent Regulations.

.

Marathon PGM withdraws Bamoos option

2010-07-05T18:36:00.000-07:00

We received an email to our CRM group account from Marathon PGM today. An excerpt from the email is below:

“After consultation with First Nations, government agencies and residents of Marathon and surrounding communities, it became clear that the loss of the fishery in Bamoos Lake was undesirable. Accordingly, Marathon PGM has decided unilaterally to withdraw the North Option [the Bamoos Lake option] from further consideration.

As a consequence of this change in the development plans for the Marathon project, Marathon PGM requested a brief hiatus period in the federal environmental assessment process to re-evaluate potential process solids storage options. The South Option remains technically and financially viable as documented in the mine feasibility study and will continue to be pursued. In addition, the Marathon PGM project team is assessing other potential options, considering the input that we have received through our public consultation program. The company plans to submit an addendum to the Project Description Report to CEAA and MPMO by mid-July 2010, detailing the results of the re-evaluation process. The environmental assessment process is expected to proceed without any significant effect on the overall schedule.”

Hurray! This is a fantastic step in the right direction! At the public information meeting on May 27th, a member of Citizens for a Responsible Mine asked the consultants if they would consider removing the North/Bamoos option from their formal environmental assessment submission. The response at the meeting was ‘no’, MarathonPGM would not withdraw the option. Today’s development indicates that Marathon PGM is wisely responding to expanding public input regarding the development of the mine. We should all take a moment to congratulate ourselves for using our voices to influence the type of community development we would like to see in our region. Thank you to all of you who joined the Citizens for a Responsible Mine group. We are sending an extra thank you to those of you who took the time to write letters to MPs, MPPs and Amy Liu, the Environmental Assessment Coordinator.

We would like to host a ‘hurray and thank you’ gathering in Pic River and/or Marathon. Please take a moment to email us to let us know if you would be interested in joining us so that we can pick an appropriate time/place.

We still have work to do. We need to continue to work with Marathon PGM and participate in the public consultation process to ensure that we achieve the best tailings management scenario possible. The ‘South Option’ that is still on the table involves the loss of 44 ponds and 30 streams. One of the estimated twelve dams required for this option would be approximately 89 meters high – the height of a 24 story building - and half a kilometre wide. We do not yet know what other options will be proposed this month. We also need to ensure that the closure plan and the financial assurances posted, estimated by Marathon PGM to be in the order of $8 million, are appropriate.

Please continue to encourage your friends and colleagues to join our Facebook group.

Thanks for your support. We hope to see you soon!

June 1st Marathon Mercury article and corrections

2010-06-04T17:09:00.000-07:00

On May 27, members of the community met with Marathon PGM and some of its consultants to discuss the project. Much of the concern related to Marathon PGM's proposal to have Bamoos Lake scheduled as a tailings impoundment area (TIA).

The following article appeared in the June 1, 2010 Marathon Mercury and is reproduced here with the gracious permission of the publisher. A scanned .pdf version of the article can be found here.

Following the article you will find corrections to misstatements by Marathon PGM's consultants that were reported in the article.

[note: click on Read more>>, below the photo, to view the entire piece.]

Marathon PGM public meeting on environment assessment review:
‘Taking out a lake is not an easy thing to do, it’s a significant challenge’

Representatives for Marathon PGM told a Marathon audience last Thursday that ‘taking out a lake is not an easy decision, it’s a significant challenge’.

Brian Fraser, technical data consultant for the proposed open pit mine operation, said a creative solution is needed to compensate for the loss of Bamoos Lake if that option is approved by provincial and federal agencies following the environmental assessment process.

“A creative solution is needed because we can’t create an identical lake when the mine ceases operation,” he said. “It has to be creative in a way that’s acceptable. We have to look at an ‘apples to oranges’ solution rather than an ‘apples to apples’ solution,” he said. “This approach will be the foundation for the solution. We might also look at rehabilitation or restocking of lake trout fishing in other lakes as compensation for the loss of Bamoos Lake.”

Fisher was responding to questions from an audience of approximately 40 people who turned out for the public session which was focused on the environmental aspects of the proposed open pit mine with particular emphasis on the processed solids (tailings) options

The company has submitted two options to the environmental process called the ‘North’ option and the ‘South’ option. The ‘North’ option would involve using Bamoos Lake and, when the mine ceases operation, Bamoos Lake will be changed from a cold water fishery to a warm water fishery.

Ted Schintz said he was personally in support of the mine and hopes it will be successful.

“However, Bamoos Lake is a naturally sustained trout lake and only one of the many lakes in Pukaskwa National Park is a naturally sustaining trout lake. There are not too many of them,” he said. “This makes Bamoos Lake very special.”
Eric Zackrewski, president of True Grit Consulting Ltd., uses a map to illustrate one of his answers to a question from the audience at the Marathon PGM public meeting last Thursday.

Fisher said it was a ‘real challenge’ in dealing with compensation for the loss of Bamoos Lake and this (loss) ‘may even eventually lead it not being an option’.

”We don’t have any answers on compensation for change at this point although we have had discussions about it with the federal and provincial officials involved.”

Fisher said ‘we have to come to grips with the Bamoos Lake situation in black and white terms or we don’t.

“The environmental assessment is scheduled and we’ll let the integrity of the process dictate where we go from here.”

Eric Zackrewski, president of True Grit Consulting Ltd., one of the technical consultants for the project, said there is no preconceived compensation package or notion in place at the time but it is part of the process.

Nancy Fitch said the ‘Panel Review’ level for the environmental assessment review would be the sensible approach to the process as opposed to the comprehensive assessment that Marathon PGM is currently under.

Fisher said the ‘Panel Review’ option would include only three people appointed by the government(s).

“Traditionally, these three people would be one First Nations, one mining expert and one socio economic expert and they would make the final decision,” he said.

“But, under the comprehensive assessment, the process would have to have the approvals of about 30 different federal and provincial agencies. As well, it is not the company that makes the decision on which level is used, the government makes this decision.” It was pointed out that Bamoos Lake will be impacted no matter which of the two options is approved.

Stan Bouchie said that Bamoos Lake should be classified as a ‘valued eco system’.

“If it’s used for tailings, it won’t be worth anything,” he said. “Why ruin a pristine lake. The government, town or First Nations should step in here and prevent this.” Bouchie said if tailings were allowed in Bamoos Lake they could be allowed in Coubran Lake as well ruining two lakes in the process.

"Why not consider other lakes. Ruining a pristine speckled trout lake is wrong.”

Zackrewski said that one of the criteria of considering lakes for storage was their physical capability to receive such a large amount of material and ‘not all lakes in the area can meet this criteria’.

Teri Burgess said it’s important to be ‘careful with this on the front end because, there may be different people involved or different companies running the operation later on’.

“Marathon PGM has submitted two options. But, why not submit the ‘South’ option excluding Bamoos Lake - and another option?”

Fisher said the company could have submitted a ‘preferred option’.

“But, we submitted two options and they have to be considered independently and this means twice the work and twice the costs,” he said. “Today, we are still going ahead with the ‘North’ and ‘South’ options but there’s a long timeline here and things could change."

It was pointed out that the process to arrivie at the preferred options started back in 2001 and any option has to be on the table now.

If Marathon PGM were to change their options, at this point they would have to start the nine year process to arrive at preferred options all over again.

In response to another question, Marathon PGM is mandated to begin its closure plan as soon as the mine opens.

“It will cost in the $8 million range, using Lac des Iles as a model, to complete the reclamation. The money for this would be submitted to the government at the end of every quarter of production life.”

Ray Mason, vice president of operations for Marathon PGM, said he felt the meeting was ‘very worthwhile and a lot of information changed hands’.

“There’ll be more public consultations and meetings as the process continues and we’re willing to meet with groups small and large at any time,” he said. “But, we submitted two options and, if they are both denied, there’ll be no mine. It’s that simple.”

Many thanks to the Marathon Mercury for allowing the reproduction of this article.

Our comments:

The quotes from PGM and their consultants that were printed in the Mercury included several inaccuracies regarding environmental assessment. The following clarifications are provided in order to help those with an interest in the project more clearly understand the process that would be involved as proposed - through a "comprehensive" environmental assessment and a "panel review".

By way of introduction, under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act there are three regularly used levels of environmental assessment. A screening is done when it is assumed a project will have little risk of significant negative effects that can not be mitigated. Screening reports are written by federal government agencies using information provided by the proponent.

Where there are risks of significant negative effects than a comprehensive study is conducted, this is still largely an in-house affair but there are requirements for public consultation periods and funding is made available for First Nations and interested parties to review the information provided by the proponent and the assessment done by the government agencies.

Where there is a greater risk of significant environmental effects and high degree of public concern a project may be assessed through a panel review - a process which provides the greatest opportunity for public input, higher amounts of participant funding. A panel review includes public hearings that provide a venue for general and technical concerns to be raised. Supporters of a project can also weigh in and explain to the panel the reasons for their support.

Under a panel review process a panel (typically made up of three independent and qualified people) reviews the information provided by the proponent, government, First Nations and stakeholders and following that makes a recommendation to the government about whether or not there are significant environmental effects and if so what are the trade-offs in accepting them. The exact terms of reference for the panel are written by the government before they begin their work.. The final decision is not the panel's - it is the Minister of the Environment who makes it in consultation with other responsible Ministers.

As with a comprehensive review, many federal departments will evaluate the information provided by the proponent and provide opinions to the panel. Contrary to what is suggested by the quote from PGM in the article - a panel review does not rely solely on the three panel members to review the proposal. In fact there is a greater level of review because public servants are required to defend their evaluations in a public hearing process and more time and attention is typically given to a panel review than a comprehensive assessment. It is also much easier to hold the proponent to account for their assessment through a panel review with public hearings and greater participant funding.

Dropping current options to examine others would not take nine years as suggested in the article. This could be done within a year by qualified engineering experts. If the project proceeds, at least for the North Option and possibly for the South Option too the project will need a regulatory amendment that requires a much more extensive review of alternatives that what the proponent has done to date. The two proposed options will not be enough to satisfy regulators that a thorough investigation of options was considered - this work is going to have to be done sooner or later if the project proceeds.

Marathon PGM will not Remove Bamoos Tailings Management Option from Project Proposal

2010-05-28T14:10:00.000-07:00

On Thursday May 27, at the Zero-One Hundred Motel in Marathon, Ontario, Marathon PGM Corporation hosted a public meeting to respond to community concerns about the proposed open pit mining project.

In the question and answer session, Marathon PGM was asked, in light of public opposition to the use of Bamoos Lake as a tailings dump, if they would remove the Bamoos option from their formal submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Eric Zakrewksi, of True Grit Consulting Ltd., replied that they would not remove the option. The Bamoos option will be included as part of the formal proposal to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Ray Mason of Marathon PGM estimated that the South Option for managing tailings will cost approximately 17 million dollars more than the North/Bamoos option.

Marathon PGM has thoroughly analysed many different tailings management options with their own system of weighing the environmental, economic and social consequences of each option. If the project is assigned a panel review, the public is allowed to access government funds to hire independent, expert advice. Citizens for a Responsible Mine believes that the scale and the irreversibility of the consequences of both of Marathon PGM’s preferred tailings management options as well as the potential for future costs to tax payers suggest the need for an analysis by an independent expert who can weigh the tailings management options in a manner consistent with the public’s priorities.

Eric Zakrewksi of True Grit Consulting Ltd. stated that moving the CEAA review to a more rigorous panel review rather than a comprehensive review does not slow down the review process. He stated that it may, in fact, speed up the process.

Radio-Canada report on Bamoos Lake controversy

2010-05-25T17:41:00.000-07:00

Radio-Canada (the French CBC radio network) recently profiled Marathon PGM's proposal to dump tailings into Bamoos Lake.

The interviewer, William Levasseur, discusses the issue with (1) Teri Burgess (Citizens for a Responsible Mine) (2) Ron Nicholson (Ecometrix's consultant to PGM) and (3) Ramsey Hart (Canadian Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada).

Click here to listen - en français, mes amis!