The Truth About Glacier's Permits

King County Shoreline Permit

• The King County Shoreline Permits, which were required for the proposed construction of the industrial dock, were actually denied by King County. In denying the permits, the County found the larger project was not a “water dependent” use and thus failed to satisfy shoreline permit requirements.

• A “water dependent” use is defined as “a principal use which can exist only where the landwater interface provides biological or physical conditions necessary for use.”

• With the exception of an approximate 10 year window of the mines 60 years of operations, the property did not require nor utilize barging operations.

• Glacier Northwest appealed King County's decision and hired the same corporate law firm who helped Exxon fight against the state of Alaska to do battle in the courtroom. The county denial was overturned.

HPA Permit

• All construction to be performed in Puget Sound requires an HPA permit which is issued from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The sole mandate of this permit is to protect fish life and provide for "not net loss of fish and fish habitat".

• One of the main avenues used to ensure fish protection is through the application of "fish windows" which are restrictions that disallow in-water construction during certain times of the year in relation to fish species spawning including salmon, lingcod, surf smelt, sand lance, herring and rock sole.

• Although all fish species under state protection have been documented at the Glacier site WDFW has declined to apply all of the fish windows because if they did, Glacier would have no open window to build the dock.

• During an informal appeal hearing action brought on by Preserve Our Islands, we were told by the state biologist overseeing the permit that that the fish windows, which are managed by State law, would not be applied because "we need sand and gravel."

• In addition to their decision not to apply the appropriate fish windows, WDFW has failed to adequately consider a range of adverse effects that will result from the 40,000 square foot shade footprint, pile driving, noise aversion, gravel spillage and macroalgae impacts.

ESA Consultation

• The Glacier Northwest dock construction requires a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Because there are endangered species that utilize the site, an endangered species consultation between the Army Corps and The National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS)is required by law.

• Consultations were required for Chinook, Steelhead, Bull Trout and Orcas.

• The Biological Evaluations (BE) which are the basis for these consultations and are to provide investigation to the projects impact on the listed species were written by Glacier Northwest's paid biologist.

• Although the evaluations were full of inaccurate information and blatant misrepresentations, both the Army Corp and The National Marine Fisheries Services agreed with Glacier's determination that the project would have no adverse effects. As just one example of the errors found in the BE, the evaluation for the endangered Orcas reported that they did not even utilize Maury Island. Glacier's failure to fully investigate the facts is unethical. However, the failure of the Corps and NMFS is against the law.

• These consultation approvals were granted even though underwater noise levels generated from the project would be higher than levels already determined by the Federal agencies to he harmful or fatal to fish species and marine mammals.

• By concurring with Glacier's determination, the National Marine Fisheries Services actually went against the directive in their own Salmon recovery plan which notes the importance of the Maury Island shoreline and directs its protection from further development.

• Both agencies have failed to prevent "take" in their consultation approvals and as such have broken the law. ( The definition of "take" under the ESA includes to harrass, harm, hunt, shoot wound, kill, trap,capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct)

Army Corps

• The dock construction proposed by Glacier Northwest requires two Federal permits which are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.

• As part of this permitting process the Corps is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA) regulations. These regulations require Federal agencies to consider the environmental and human effects of proposed action.

• As part of the NEPA process the Corps is required to perform an analysis to explore the effects of the proposed project. If there is a finding of environmental and human impact, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. If there is a finding of non-significance an Environmental Analysis (EA) is drafted to explain the corps determination that the proposed project will not impact the natural and human environment.

• The Army Corps released a draft EA on February 9th with a determination of non-significance.

• This draft EA provides no examination into the impacts to the environment and public health as a result of the disturbance of the toxic arsenic and lead that will be the direct result of the Corps permit approval. In fact, the EA declines to investigate any issues related to the mining operations.

• The Corps has failed in their clear ethical and legal responsibility to look at all the impacts that will occur as a direct and indirect result of the agency permitting action.

Arsenic

• Although the arsenic levels in the soils at the site are nearly 20 times higher than levels allowed under State and Federal toxics laws, there has been no authorized jurisdictional agency who has stepped in to review Glacier's cleanup proposal.

• The entire Asarco fallout plume site was considered part of the  EPA's National Priorities list for cleanup, however in a consent decree with ASARCO the State Department of Ecology ( DOE) was given the administrative role for overseeing cleanup actions in the wider plume area while the EPA took on Ruston. 

• To date the DOE Toxics Division has not even done a risk assessment at the Glacier site nor have they been involved in  providing any oversight to Glacier's proposal to mine what is essentially a Superfund site (across the country the EPA has designated areas with less arsenic than the glacier property as Superfund cleanup sites)or to the suggestion that the hazardous wastes be disposed of on site over a sole source aquifer and smack dab on top of Puget Sound).

• The Water Quality permit and Clean Water Act Permit that DOE granted to Glacier did not  explore or address the arsenic issue nor did it require a stormwater plan be approved by DOE in relation to the containment cell proposal.

• Amazingly, the permit coordinator granting the Clean Water Act permits, was unaware that there was a contamination issue on the site.

• He also had no idea that approximately 10,000 gallons of water  would need to be sprayed onto the contaminated soils as they are being removed and transported. As a result, no investigation was given to the tremendous amount of water that if used inappropriately could create a significant discharge of water laced with arsenic contaminated soils running towards Puget Sound.  

• A Water Quality certification permit was granted by DOE with the assumption that there would be an adequate arsenic cleanup plan put in place at a later date by the DOE Toxics Division. 

• DOE Toxics Division assumed King County would be dealing with the arsenic issues and cleanup plan during the grading permit process.

• King County in turn, has been processing Glacier's grading permit under the assumption that DOE was regulating the arsenic cleanup. King County believed that Glacier had entered into the DOE Voluntary Compliance Program for the arsenic cleanup years ago and was surprised to learn that not only was there was no cleanup plan in place, Glacier had yet to submit one.

• As a result there are two Clean Water Act permits that have been granted by DOE without the department giving any investigation to the potential arsenic impacts on surface water, ground water and Puget Sound

This Mine Expansion Doesn't Make any Sense

It Doesn't Make Environmental Sense

It Doesn't Make Economic Sense

It Doesn't Make Sense For The People Of Washington State