Lake Superior Mining News

Rio Tinto has notified the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Ottawa National Forest (ONF) that it “no longer wishes to pursue” exploration on public forest land in Bates Township, located in Iron County, Michigan.  Rio Tinto’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Kennecott Exploration, applied to explore the lakefront parcel in 2007.

“I would like to think the public opposition that formed, when residents were finally indirectly informed of Kennecott’s application, was a major factor in Kennecott’s decision,” said Richard Sloat, lifelong resident of Iron County.

According to Gale Stowell, Bates Township Zoning Administrator, the township has a strong zoning ordinance that places certain restrictions on mining and exploration.

“If anyone came to do mining in our township they would have to have a public hearing.”

At a hearing, local residents would likely be concerned that exploration or mining could pollute lakes, rivers and local groundwater.  Iron County has been dealing with mine contamination for years.  Acid drainage from the Buck and Dober mines, which produced iron ore, continues to pollute the Iron River.

Bates Township has a history of questioning potentially dangerous mining practices on public land.  In 1980, the township, along with Houghton County’s Portage Township and Baraga, Delta and Charlevoix counties adopted a resolution opposing the leasing of state land for uranium exploration and mining.

Nearly thirty years later Kennecott’s exploration project on scenic Perch Lake drew not only the ire of local citizens but a strong critique from Forest Service staff analyzing the application.

In a May 5 letter, Barbara Van Alstine, the ONF’s Kenton District Ranger, noted that discussion with Forest Service personnel coordinating review of Kennecott’s exploration application, indicated that certain sensitive sections in the proposed project area would have to be “dropped from consideration. . . due to concerns regarding wildlife, heritage, old growth and botany resources.”

The letter noted that public comment played a deciding factor in excluding the most sensitive areas from consideration.

However, later that month, the Kenton District was notified by the BLM that parcels could not be removed from consideration without changing the Ottawa National Forest Plan or using a “formal withdrawal process via Congress.”

Did Kennecott halt the project due to Forest Service skepticism, township and public opposition or a strong zoning law?  Mining companies are often reluctant to attribute the cancellation of projects to public or local government opposition.

While Bates Township officials expressed concern with Kennecott’s exploration activities, Gale Stowell isn’t sure exactly why the company dropped its plans.

Richard Sloat suggests that the answer may be related to the vibrant public opposition to Kennecott’s proposed Eagle Mine, in nearby Marquette County, currently “deferred” and stalled for years.

“Why would Kennecott want to launch another public relations campaign in another region of the U.P.?,” questioned Sloat.

Kennecott, and a joint venture project of Bitterroot Resources and uranium giant Cameco still have exploration proposals on public land pending with the Forest Service for five other areas in the western Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 19th, 2009 at 10:46 pm and is filed under Kennecott-Rio Tinto, Michigan, public land, wildlife. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.