Rio Tinto distributed a “fact” sheet about metallic sulfide mining (also called by the less-descriptive term “hardrock mining”) last year.  According to Rio Tinto’s fact sheet [available by clicking HERE]:

“The term “sulfide mining” is slang, not a scientific or industry term.  It is a term used by mining opponents to elicit concern and to confuse people … there is no basis for describing a copper, nickel or any other mineral mine as a “sulfide mine.”

We at LSMN decided to offer readers a short, interactive quiz, to test your knowledge of this issue.  Guess who said the following by matching the numbered quotes with the corresponding letters.  Letters can be used more than once.  Scroll all the way down for correct answers at the bottom (no cheating!).

The Quotes:

1.  ”A sulfide mine is a mine where the orebody and metals of interest were formed in the presence of sulfur creating sulfide type minerals … sulfide mines are important.”

2.  ”We participated in a Mine Work Group that was successful in developing rules for metallic sulfide mining in Michigan.”

3.  [Blank] announced today a proposed decision to approve a series of permits to the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company to conduct sulfide mining operations at the proposed Eagle Project Mine.”

4.  ”The Flambeau Mine was a Kennecott sulfide mining operation that ran for about 4 years in the 1990s.”

5.  ”If the mineral products and waste materials associated with nonferrous metallic sulfide mining operations are not properly managed and controlled, they can cause significant damage to the environment, impact human health, and degrade the quality of life of the impacted community.”

6.  ”Sulfide mining is prone to pollution and very difficult to clean … the [EPA] estimates that at least 40 percent of the headwater streams in western watersheds are contaminated where similar mining is occurring.”

Who Said It?

A.  Rio Tinto/Kennecott

B.  Your uncle

C.  Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

D.  Citizens for Responsible Mining (a Rio Tinto support group)

E.  Save the Wild UP

F.  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

G.  National Wildlife Federation

H.  Huron Mountain Club

I.   U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak

J.  Michigan Legislature

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Answer Key:

1.  A  (Rio Tinto conflicts its own statement (top of this posting) in another one of its fact sheets on the Michigan Eagle Mine – click here)

2.  A  (Kennecott’s 2005 “sustainable development” report – click here)

3.  F  (a Michigan DEQ news release – click here)

4.  D  (Citizens’ for Responsible Mining’s website – click here)

5.  J  (near the beginning of Michigan’s much-touted law regulating metallic sulfide mining – click here; for the full law click here)

6.  I  (an opinion article Stupak wrote last year – click here)

Note:  Although Rio Tinto and some of their supporters have made a big fuss that the term “metallic sulfide mining” (or the shortened version used by the company, “sulfide mining”) is only used by their opponents to “elicit concern” and “confuse” people, it is a common, and descriptive, industry term used to describe a type of mining that commonly creates a unique type of environmental devastation Norway calls “one of the most serious mining-related environmental problems across the world.”

The above examples where industry, its supporters, politicians, regulators, and lawmakers have used this term is not meant to be a comprehensive list, as the terms are widely used.

by Eartha Melzer, Michigan Messenger 

A member of the Summer Cloud drumming group performs during a 2008 ceremony at Eagle Rock

Two days before the DEQ ceases to exist and a week after its director stepped down, DEQ moved to wrap up a long standing fight over permits for a planned nickel sulfide mine by concluding that only buildings may be considered “places of worship.”  

A rock that is sacred to Anishnabe people need not be considered when issuing a mining permit because state law only recognizes buildings as places of worship, the Department of Environmental Quality announced Thursday.   

This decision cleared the way for DEQ to finalize permits for a mine planned for public land on the Yellow Dog Plain northwest of Marquette. 

The resolution comes at a time of great tumult for the department. Director Steven Chester resigned last week, and the department is slated to come under the leadership of DNR director Rebecca Humphries when it is rolled into the new Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment on Jan. 17.   

For seven years the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company, a subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto, has been trying to develop the mine project. The company promised hundreds of construction and mining jobs but has faced opposition from groups that are concerned that acid drainage from the mine will damage the nearby Salmon Trout River and Lake Superior.  

The National Wildlife Federation, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, and the Huron Mountain Club together filed an administrative appeal of DEQ’s 2007 approval of mining and groundwater discharge permits for the mine.  

Eagle Rock, photo courtesy Yellow Dog Summer

 Over the course of more than a year the groups described numerous mine safety and environmental concerns. They also argued that the DEQ had failed to properly consider the impact of the mining on traditional Native American uses of the area, including the collection of medicinal plants and the use of Eagle Rock in religious ceremony.  

On Aug.18 2009 DEQ Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Patterson recommended that the Kennecott permits “be allowed with the exception that provision be made to avoid direct impacts to Eagle Rock that may interfere with the religious practices there on.”  

State mining law requires that “Residential dwellings, places of business, places of worship, schools, hospitals, government buildings, or other buildings used for human occupancy all or part of the year” be taken into account when permitting a mine. 

“Kennecott and, as a consequence, DEQ, did not properly address that impact on the sacred rock outcrop known as Eagle Rock as a place covered by Part 632 Rules,“ Patterson wrote in his review of the case.   

“…[T]he excavation and drilling in the immediate area of Eagle Rock and fencing it off will materially affect its use as a place of worship,“ he wrote. “This should in some manner be accommodated , and would best be done so by relocating the adit and access to the mine to a location that would not interfere with that function.” 

On Nov. 6 2009 DEQ Director Chester remanded the case back to Patterson and asked that he expand on his discussion of the religious significance of Eagle Rock and DEQ’s responsibility for places of worship under state law.  

 Chester promised to issue a final decision on the permits after receiving the supplemental analysis from Judge Patterson.   

Just two weeks ago the DEQ still expected to wait to decide on the permits until hearing from Patterson.  

A Dec. 29 Marquette Mining Journal article on the potential effect of DEQ restructuring on permits for the Kennecott mine reported:   

“[DEQ spokesman Bob McCann] said he had no indication when Patterson might provide the additional information so a final decision can be made on the contested case.” 

In an interview Thursday afternoon McCann denied that the timing of the decision had anything to do with the impending restructuring of the department.   

“We were hoping to have this done in December,” he said. 

McCann said that DEQ senior policy advisor Frank Ruswick reviewed the documents filed and decided DEQ could issue a final order without a modified proposal from Judge Patterson.   

“Michigan mining law references buildings that are places of worship,“ McCann said. “Eagle Rock doesn’t fit into that under Michigan mining law, therefore it doesn’t apply in this case.”  

National Wildlife Fund attorney Michelle Halley decried DEQ’s move as “an effort to push this through before [Rebecca Humphries] becomes the director of the decision making body.” 

Halley said that she finds it “totally illogical” that DEQ would request an opinion from an administrative law judge and then make a decision on the permits before receiving it, adding that her clients intend to appeal DEQ’s decision in circuit court.  

Kennecott responded to DEQ’s final approval in statement saying that it plans to begin clearing the mine site and constructing a water treatment facility this year.  

“Today’s decision by the State is great news for our project and a community and region that has been anticipating the job opportunities and economic contribution our project will trigger,” Rio Tinto / Kennecott Eagle Minerals General Manager Jon Cherry, said in the statement. “Permitting this project has been a very rigorous process that has enabled Kennecott to develop an exceptionally responsible design and approach to mining in the 21st Century in Michigan.” 

Kennecott said that it aims to begin production of nickel and copper from the mine in 2013.   

The Michigan Environmental Council called DEQ’s final approval “disappointing and inappropriate.” 

“Strong Michigan laws were written specifically to protect Michigan’s waters, including the Great Lakes, from toxic byproducts this mining will create,” MEC Spokesman Hugh McDiarmid Jr. said in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the state has chosen not to fully enforce these laws in the permitting process.” 

To read more from Eartha Melzer, please visit Michigan Messenger.

New commissioner David Saint-Onge questioned why the City was considering the resolution.

“As a new guy on the commission, I’m not so sure why this issue comes before us, to be honest with you, why we’re taking the amount of time that we’ve taken to address this issue – not that it’s not important,” said Saint-Onge. “I do believe that there are some portions of the resolution that’s being offered this evening that are unnecessarily inflammatory.”

Saint-Onge said that, since the resolution was introduced he could not, according to City guidelines, abstain from a vote. The seemingly reluctant St. Onge endorsed the resolution with a quiet “yes” vote.

According to November 30 City Commission meeting minutes, the anti-ballot resolution was introduced in order to support “State Senator Prusi’s efforts to defend mining in the Upper Peninsula.” In a November 11 news release, endorsed by four other Upper Peninsula politicians, Prusi claimed the MiWater ballot would “BAN any future mining,” and would create “economic devastation for the families that live and work in the Upper Peninsula.” Although the proposed MiWater ballot would act as an amendment to legislation governing only metallic sulfide mining (the ballot would also require similar legislation for uranium mining), Prusi’s claim was invoked by two City commissioners.

Mayor Pro-Tem John DePetro, who introduced the anti-ballot resolution, suggested that the ballot effort was a “guise” that “would affect and stop future mining in the Upper Peninsula the rest of our lives.”

Commissioner Frederick Stonehouse agreed, claiming the ballot would “have a very negative effect on all mining in the Upper Peninsula, be it iron, copper, nickel, even limestone.”

During public comment, building contractor, Jorma Lankinen and Marquette resident, Tony Retaskie used rhetoric similar to that in Senator Prusi’s statement.

“The Michigan water ballot proposal is really an anti-economic, anti-jobs, anti-mining and anti-Upper Peninsula proposal, and it’s disguised under a clean water initiative derived from Grosse Pointe,” said Retaskie.

Retired professor, Jon Saari disagreed, saying that Retaskie’s comments represent “the whole hammer blow of what we’re going to be seeing in this debate over the next year.”

“Our public discourse, these days, is abysmal,” said Saari. “This Michigan water initiative is being presented as anti-UP, anti-UP economy, culture and future, and a trick by a bunch of Grosse Pointe elitists.”

Gene Champagne, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Big Bay (CCBB), introduced himself as from “Big Bay up the road, not Big Bay below the bridge, at Grosse Pointe, as some of our officials like to point out in the media.”

Champagne explained that CCBB introduced a resolution in 2003 or 2004 calling for independent hydrology studies.

“That resolution called for a third party, independent hydrology study on the Yellow Dog Plains before any hardrock or sulfide mining takes place,” said Champagne. “The hydrology is not a guise; it’s been at the forefront of this issue since the beginning.”

In 2005, Marquette County Board Chairman Gerald Corkin wrote to express similar concerns to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality:

“The Marquette County Board of Commissioners supports…recent requests for a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Baseline and Hydrologic Survey of the Yellow Dog Plains region. This request has the support of Marquette County residents and local government officials, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, as well as State Senator Michael Prusi.”

The Marquette City Commission unanimously passed a resolution supporting independent hydrology studies and was supported by Marquette County and a number of townships.

In his support for the anti-ballot resolution, Commissioner Stonehouse noted that only three percent of Michigan’s voting population lived in the Upper Peninsula.

“We effectively have no functional voice on politics in this state – we are simply overwhelmed by the numbers,” said Stonehouse.

Commissioner Robert Niemi also took a practical view of the ballot initiative.

“The issue is too complex to do by initiative,” said Niemi. “The future of the mining industry is important to the UP and the vagaries of a political campaign are not the way to decide the question.”

Some comments in support of the resolution claimed disastrous economic consequences if the ballot proposal moved forward.

Amy Clickner, CEO of the Lake Superior Community Partnership (City commissioner and former Cleveland-Cliffs manager of public affairs, Don Ryan, helped form the group), along with some influential building contractors one of the main supporters of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine proposal, claimed that a water ballot proposal would threaten all other aspects of Michigan’s economy.

“Once we start this slippery slope, where does it end?” questioned Clickner. “Is the next ballot initiative what we can do in timber, is it what we can do in agriculture, is it what we can do in recreation?”

Jon LaSalle, chairman of Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs, claimed that, if the proposed ballot were passed, “The economic consequences of all future mining would be horrendous.”

“There’s no proven contamination anywhere in this subject matter,” said LaSalle.

However, according to the US Forest Service, at least ten-thousand miles of rivers in the American West have been destroyed by metallic sulfide mining operations. In September 2008, one of Rio Tinto’s largest shareholders, the Norwegian government, divested and called the company “grossly unethical” for its operations at a controversial mine in West Papua, currently under Indonesian military control. In a statement, Norway’s Council on Ethics said that acid drainage from metallic sulfide mines is “considered one of the most serious mining-related environmental problems across the world.”

Promoted as a “citizen” campaign, the spokesperson for Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs is Deb Muchmore. For years, Muchmore has been Rio Tinto’s lead spokesperson in efforts to open the proposed Eagle Mine.

LaSalle also said that claims of future uranium mining in Michigan were unfounded.

“Today, earth scientists agree that no one has found a commercially-viable uranium ore body in Michigan,” said LaSalle.

Retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, Gail Griffith, disagrees. According to Griffith, since 2004 the price of uranium has dropped from $139 a pound to less than $50 a pound, making uranium operations that may be economically viable in the future not viable today.

“If well water in the Jacobsville Sandstone formation is already contaminated with uranium it seems reasonable to develop stringent rules for uranium mining to protect these waters and to do it now,” said Griffith.

According to Michigan Messenger a joint venture between uranium giant, Cameco, and Bitteroot Resources, has been actively exploring the Upper Peninsula since 2003, spending over $700 thousand on uranium exploration in the first nine months of 2009 alone.  In a report issued to shareholders in July, the company noted that it had “identified several areas which warrant additional exploration.”

Commissioner Stonehouse seemed to agree with Griffith.

“If it only prevented uranium mining I would likely support it and would be the first one to sign the petition,” said Stonehouse. “If the issue were only about mining on the Yellow Dog Plains and its sensitivity to Lake Superior, that’s a different story too.”

Stonehouse said that a number of issues are affecting the Great Lakes that are more significant that metallic sulfide mining and cited his belief that Asian carp “will decimate a seven billion dollar fishing industry.

“From an environmental perspective that is a disaster of biblical proportions,” said Stonehouse.

For additional video from the meeting, please go to YouTube.

Steven Chester, Michigan DEQ Director; Photo courtesy State of Michigan; Oddly enough, Chester makes the final decision on whether or not his own agency followed the law in approving Kennecott-Rio Tinto's Eagle Mine application

According to the Associated Press, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director, Steven Chester, wants further information from Judge Patterson on whether or not Eagle Rock is legally a place of worship and is asking Patterson to reverse legal advice that would somewhat protect the religious rights of Native Americans in Michigan.

In August,  Patterson recommended nearly unconditional support of Kennecott-Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Mine, in the Huron Mountains of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  The judge’s one stipulation was that Eagle Rock, a place of worship for indigenous peoples, be protected.  During the contested case on the mine proposal, DEQ lawyers argued that Eagle Rock is not a place of worship because it is not a constructed building, such as a Christian church or a mosque.

Patterson’s recommendation mirrored, nearly identically, Kennecott’s view of its own application and took the company’s court testimony as solid fact.  Immediately prior to the judge’s ruling, Kennecott acknowledged, to the Environmental Protection Agency, that indigenous access to Eagle Rock was a significant issue, perhaps reflecting the motive behind the judge’s opinion on the sacred site.

Apparently not under consideration is that the DEQ’s coordinator for review of the Eagle Mine application, Joe Maki, said, under oath, that neither he or his team followed a central tenet of Michigan’s “Part 632″ mining law.

Also swept under the rug are comments made by the State’s commissioned rock mechanics expert, Dr. David Sainsbury,  that the company’s mine plan was “technically antiquated, sloppy and equivalent to high school level work.” Sainsbury also insisted that the DEQ kept relevant local geological information out of his reports and repeatedly said that Kennecott’s conclusions regarding the ability of the mine to not collapse “are not considered to be defensible” and does “not reflect industry best practice.”

Judge Patterson’s ruling is simply a recommendation to Chester.  In a bizarre sort of justice, Chester will soon issue a final decision on whether he and his agency followed the law in approving Kennecott’s application.

The meeting contrasted sharply with hearings held on Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Project mine from 2006 to 2007. More than 400 attended one Eagle hearing, with over ninety-percent speaking in opposition to the project.

While not quite the inverse of the Eagle hearings—roughly sixty-percent of public comments were offered in support of the milling project and only about forty public comments were taken—the number in support greatly outnumbered detractors, partly due to the presence of mine company staff and generous amounts of heckling from much of the crowd.

To thunderous applause, one audience member disrupted Big Bay resident and Save the Wild UP (SWUP) director, Kristi Mill’s public comment. The man shouted that discussion of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine was “not relevant” to the Humboldt hearing. Moderator, James Collins, replied that Mills had time remaining for her comment and that discussion of Eagle was allowed because the two projects “are related”.

Mills had been questioning why the DEQ was using tax payer dollars to consider Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill application while the Eagle Project has been “deferred” indefinitely.

Rio Tinto has had a rough few months.

The company has seen a dramatic reduction in its share value as metal prices have plummeted. Nickel, alone, has fallen from over $25 per pound roughly a year ago to less than $5 per pound today. Burdened with roughly $40 billion in debt, the company announced plans last week, to sell nearly one-fifth of the company to the Chinese government-run aluminum company, Chinalco, currently Rio Tinto’s largest shareholder. Kennecott is, currently, a wholly-owned subsidiary of London-based Rio Tinto.

Economy Main Issue at Hearing

A need for additional area employment and economic growth was, by far, the strongest theme during the hearing. Every comment in support of the project cited the need for more jobs without addressing the Humboldt application specifically. Although not a job creation agency, the DEQ was repeatedly urged to approve the project based on the potential for job creation and economic growth.

County commissioner Deb Pellow said that Rio Tinto’s project is “very important to the county’s overall economic diversification and well being.”

“DEQ: do your job and bring us these jobs,” urged Pellow.

Gerald Corkin, chairman of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners, said the mill project would “provide up to fifty to seventy full-time jobs [and] one-hundred to two-hundred construction jobs.”

“There’s the potential to have mining for another hundred years in the UP,” Corkin speculated.

Joe Derocha, Humboldt Township supervisor, said, “Mining was what raised us, brought us here today.”

“More businesses, more jobs, more people create more economic development,” said Derocha.

Tom Peterson, former Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company general manager and current president of Citizens for Responsible Mining offered his support for the project and represented the hearing’s only complaint coming from a Rio Tinto supporter.

“I did not want to see Kennecott do what they did down in Ladysmith at the Flambeau Mine and that is to high-grade a deposit and leave a lot of ore that could be mined,” said Peterson.

According to Jack Parker, former Rock Mechanics Director at the White Pine Mine, Rio Tinto has similar plans for the Eagle ore deposit. According to Parker, the company plans to leave much of the ore behind, taking only the richest available. Parker maintains that, since much of the ore is owned by the people of Michigan, mining only the high and mid-grades and leaving the rest is “not responsible mining”.

DEQ: “Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public” at Humboldt Mill

According to documents obtained through an open records request, the DEQ believes mercury discharges may be a serious issue at the mill site. Mercury is known to bioaccumulate in fish tissue and is considered a serious danger to public health. According to the DEQ, “There are no proven technologies to consistently achieve [a] low level…Mercury would likely be a major concern to the public and environmental groups.”

At the hearing, some local citizens expressed concerns regarding potential water contamination and fugitive dust control problems at the Humboldt Mill.

Robert Rivera, from Iron River, told the DEQ that he is opposed to Rio Tinto’s milling plans that could process ore currently being explored by Prime Meridian Resources, in Iron County, where he has lived most of his life.

“I grew up in a mining family, in a mining town a quarter of a mile from an abandoned and toxic mine site on the Iron River. It has been remediated and remediated again and it still leaches yellow boy,” said Rivera.

Ely Township resident and miner, Stephen Johnson, said that he lives along the Escanaba River. “Since the thirty years I’ve lived here I’ve seen the Middle Branch of the Escanaba deteriorate as a quality watershed,” Johnson said. “We used to have brook trout galore in it some thirty years ago and I’m not aware of anybody catching a brook trout down by my residency in the last fifteen years.”

Johnson commented on Callahan Mining’s Humboldt Mill application in the 1980s and said that he was “not really happy with the way, at that time, the DNR handled the situation. There were a lot of questions we asked that were never answered.”

“My major concern is here what is the DEQ going to do to ensure that the quality no longer deteriorates anymore and what are we doing to bring it back to the level that it was thirty years ago,” said Johnson.

Incomplete Application?

Only a handful of comments in opposition to Rio Tinto’s milling project highlighted concerns directly related to aspects of the company’s milling application.

Chuck Brumleve spoke on behalf of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and raised concerns regarding water inflow through bedrock surrounding the tailings pit. According to Brumleve, “the applicant seems to treat the pit as if it’s a sealed pool or container for sulfide tailings.”

“There is a whole body of current information by the Canadians and the [Environmental Protection Agency] that indicates surrounding rock considerations are the primary consideration in safe tailings disposal, which is not addressed by the applicant in this mining permit application,” said Brumleve.

Brumleve also addressed the need to clean-up existing mining contamination at White Pine, the Keweenaw Copper district and the Empire and Tilden mines before new mining projects are permitted.

Brumleve urged Rio Tinto supporters to “think of the next seven generations and not of your level of affluence here in today.”

Big Bay resident, Cynthia Pryor, raised concerns that construction plans for a protective berm were not included in the Humboldt application and that the plan lacks adequate contingency plans for such events as an “absolute berm failure”.

“It’s very difficult to give public comment on something that’s not included in the application,” said Pryor.

Defending the DEQ

Even the DEQ’s Office of Geological Survey Director, Hal Fitch, took his turn at the microphone to respond to this writer’s public comment on DEQ malfeasance regarding the handling of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Project application. Fitch also defended his role in forming a non-profit corporation with Kennecott and Bitterroot Resources while the Eagle Project application was under agency consideration.

The Northern Michigan Geologic Repository Association (NMGRA) was formed by the DEQ in 2007, with Fitch as president. Meetings were held in the DEQ’s Lansing office building and were attended by paid DEQ and DNR staff. Company representatives expressed an interest in utilizing federal and state grants to fund NMGRA projects.

In an October 2007 e-mail, Fitch acknowledged “that there would be a problem with a state agency forming a corporation” but “came up with an innovative way to address the problem: formation of a non-profit corporation that is not a part of any state agency, but in which OGS is a participating member.”

Hal Fitch resigned from the NMGRA’s board in Fall 2008.

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch defended his actions: “To suggest that somehow I’m corrupt because I tried to organize a system where we could get the users to pay for something we’re mandated to do, I don’t think that’s very responsible.”

Fitch also defended the actions of DEQ employee Joe Maki, who testified under oath during a recent contested case hearing, that the DEQ did not follow a key provision in Michigan’s new metallic mining law:

“The applicant has the burden of establishing that the terms and conditions set forth in the permit application, mining, reclamation and environmental protection plan and environmental assessment will result in a mining operation that reasonably minimizes actual or potential adverse impacts on air, water and other natural resources and meets the requirements of this act.”

When questioned by a National Wildlife Federation attorney if either he or “the mining team” applied this key section of the new law to their analysis of the Eagle Project application, Maki responded, “I did not, no.”

At the Humboldt hearing, Fitch disagreed, saying, “Joe Maki did not say that we did not, that we disobeyed the law in processing the permit,” said Fitch.

Fitch was presented with a copy of Maki’s court transcript.

Rio Tinto is proposing to produce both nickel and copper concentrates at the Humboldt Mill that would “most likely” be shipped via rail to smelters in Canada. The waste material, containing heavy metals and acid-generating material, would be deposited underwater at the mill site, on top of Callahan’s tailings. The company plans to discharge treated wastewater into wetlands that feed into the middle branch of the Escanaba River.

According to the DEQ, the company must still apply for Air Use, Surface Water Discharge and Inland Lakes and Streams permits before the Humboldt Mill can be used again for mine processing. The DEQ expects to issue a proposed decision in “mid-April.” A new public hearing, addressing all of the required permits would follow.

Citizens are encouraged to send in written comments on the Humboldt Mill mining application. Comments are due to the DEQ by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, March 18.

Letters should be sent to:

Kennecott/Humboldt Mill Comments

DEQ Office of Geological Survey

PO Box 30256

Lansing, MI 48909

Or, by e-mail:

Deq-kennecott-humboldt-mill-comments@michigan.gov

Marquette County, Michigan – New information has surfaced suggesting that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) assisted Kennecott-Rio Tinto by forgoing proper procedure in allowing the company to reconstruct a road crossing in Fall of 2004.  With Kennecott’s persistence, the DEQ approved an ill-designed plan to install a new culvert on the Triple A Road where a branch of the Salmon Trout River flows.  Kennecott was contracting with Pete O’Dovero, of Associated Contractors, to rehabilitate the road crossing.

The Salmon Trout River houses the last remaining naturally-spawning population of native coaster brook trout on the south shore of Lake Superior.  The coaster, a rare strain of brook trout, was once abundant in Lake Superior fisheries.  Years of hard logging and soil erosion nearly sealed the fish’s fate by the early 20^th century.  Kennecott plans to construct a metallic sulfide mine underneath the unique river.

In early August 2004, Joan Duncan, from the DNR’s Geological and Land Management Division, contacted Department of Natural Resources (DNR) biologist George Madison with Kennecott’s plans in order to procure his expertise regarding issuance of a permit.  Kennecott planned to begin constructing the new road crossing the last week in September.

“Due to the sensitivity of the Salmon Trout River, the coaster brook trout, and the large public audience,” Madison recommended maintaining a five-year sediment trap program, in order to prevent over 80 years of sediment from mobilizing and washing down the Salmon Trout, a concern of the DNR’s Fisheries Division.

According to Madison, “I spoke about this issue with Andrew Ware [Kennecott geologist] and the Kennecott folks may be willing to adopt this trap as a PR front.”

At an August 23 meeting, Kennecott representatives told the DEQ that the company decided not to construct the sediment trap.  According to DEQ floodplain specialist, Sheila Meier, “Kennecott is not really interested in building it at this time both because of the exposure (it is going to look bad) and trying to figure out the need for it.”

George Madison wasn’t buying it.  He appeared to be surprised with the sudden change in direction noting, “we had total agreement on what to do last week.”

According to Madison, Kennecott’s soil erosion information was “wrong” and there was “obvious sediment transport,” in the river, that “anybody should be able to recognize.”

Madison indicated that the DNR does not typically allow in-stream construction after August 15, “due to spawning coaster brook trout.”  Madison warned, “to do this in September is a bad, bad, bad idea.  For the minimal effort of a sediment trap, to mitigate public and biologic concerns, seems like a wise way to proceed.”

Madison cautioned, “We wouldn’t allow this on any other trout stream…and the Salmon Trout should have a higher standard to uphold.”

Meier sought a second opinion, from Kevin Swanson, field representative in the DNR’s Land and Water Management Division.  Swanson said that he was “quite certain the material will not move as a result of the culvert replacement” and, “if Kennecott is willing” they could “reach a compromise by asking them to construct a smaller basin within reach of the backhoe.”

Meier told Madison that, while Kennecott’s planned culvert would match up on the downstream side, “I expect that they will have to do some work on the [upstream] side” in order to funnel the stream into the culvert.

Kennecott’s Manager of Environment and Governmental Affairs, Jon Cherry, indicated that the company was eager to begin construction and began to force the DEQ’s hand.  Cherry wrote Meier, on September 10, informing her that Kennecott would begin installing a new culvert on September 21.  Interestingly, the State had yet to issue a permit for the project or even reach agreement on whether the construction plan would be feasible or not.  Cherry thanked Meier for her “assistance and cooperation on this matter.”

During a September 14 phone conversation, Meier was able to convince Madison to endorse the project, per Kennecott’s design, and to forgo his previous concerns.  That same day, an elated Meier wrote Cherry:  “Hi!  I made one last attempt to work out my differences with George before going to the next level.  Persistence paid off.  I am going to go ahead and issue the permit, hopefully today, for the crossing.”

Kennecott did not have to install the sediment trap.  This time, the illustrious fish lost.

Meier thanked Cherry “for being so patient” and indicated that she was “looking forward to a great project!.”

The road crossing, of course, failed in Spring 2005, releasing over 90 tons of sediment into the river.  The coaster brook trout?  The US Fish and Wildlife Service will decide, by April 2009, whether or not to list the fish on the endangered species list.  A listing decision would throw a wrench in Rio Tinto and the DEQ’s plans to open the company’s metallic sulfide Eagle Mine River.

Maybe, with enough wriggling…?

Author’s Note:  DEQ floodplain specialist, Sheila Meier, is married to Kennecott-Rio Tinto’s John Meier.  John Meier formerly worked for Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company and now assists Rio Tinto with permitting issues as a paid employee.   He is currently assisting the company with the “South Road” haul project.  The proposed road would connect the proposed Eagle Mine with the old Humboldt milling facility.  The road would traverse the remote Michigamme Highlands and cross at least eight rivers or streams.

Kennecott and the DEQ attempted to bypass Michigan’s “Part 632” metallic mining law by contracting construction of a haul road from the Yellow Dog Plains to the old HumboldtMine (where Kennecott intends to build a processing facility) and running power to its proposed mine along county roads’ 550, 510 and AAA.

Plans for a haul road and electric power were only revealed to the public after the DEQ approved Kennecott’s proposed Eagle Mine plans and were not considered in the permit. Because Part 632 considers metallic “mining activity” to include “construction of haul roads” and construction of utilities or extension of existing utilities,” Kennecott is legally required to submit an amendment request to the DEQ for recent changes to its permit. The DEQ is required to “submit the request for amendment to the same review process as provided for a new permit application,” which would require the DEQ to hold new public hearings.

Kennecott has hired the Alger-Delta Cooperative Electric Association to supply power to its proposed Eagle Mine. A. Lindberg & Sons has been contracted to construct the “South Road.”  However, neither Kennecott nor the Alger-Delta Rural Electric Association and Lindberg have conducted environmental impact assessments.  As required by Michigan metallic mining law, an environmental impact assessment shall be required for “existing and proposed infrastructure and utilities.”

Although extension of electric utilities to Kennecott’s mine site would currently be considered illegal, under Michigan law, Tom Harrell, Alger-Delta’s General Manager, maintains that Kennecott possesses “five out of five” permits required to operate

the mine. In reality, Kennecott has accomplished very few legal requirements to open a metallic sulfide mine in the U.P.

The DEQ and Kennecott have presented such a poor case for the mine to continue during the contested case hearing in Lansing that the DEQ, in a recent letter, is now admitting that Kennecott needs to apply for necessary amendments to its permit (including constructing a haul road and utilities).   Kennecott will also need separate mining, Inland Lakes and Streams, and Wetlands permits for a processing facility since the company is planning to either develop a lined tailings pit or dump the tailings in a lake onsite, among other issues.

According to DEQ Deputy Director, Jim Sygo in early 2008, at Humboldt “There are Waters of the State issues, and the site is a facility under [Part 632, the new metallic mining law], which will generate significant issues to permit this site.”

Interestingly, atleast as far back as October, 2007, when the DEQ’s “Mining Team” was meeting to discuss an upcoming approval, DEQ staff noted that Kennecott would need “additional permits,” which would require “legal assistance.” The DEQ acknowledged that there were “significant land and water-wetland impacts” with Kennecott’s potential mine. Knowing the major gaps in their approval of Kennecott’s mine application, DEQ Director, Steven Chester, assured his staff “we will not be reversed in court,” prompting the DEQ’s Water Bureau chief to ask, “And just how does he plan on ensuring that?”

The DEQ approved an incomplete mine plan and application on December 14, 2007, seven months before acknowledging, to the public, that Kennecott’s permit application was incomplete. Although the DEQ’s approval of an incomplete mine application did not follow current Michigan law, Chester announced, “This has been one of the most thorough reviews of an application ever done by this agency” and Kennecott’s Jon Cherry claimed that “the approval process has been thorough and rigourous.”

The DEQ now admits that “Kennecott was informed” of the need to apply for amended mining permits. On August 6, 2008, Kennecott spokeswoman, Deb Muchmore affirmed that Kennecott is “aware that there are approvals that would be required.” However, in December, 2007, Kennecott expressed that they would begin construction of its mine upon cessation of the contested case hearings, also ignoring that the DNR has yet to finalize a surface use lease permit for Kennecott to obtain 120 acres of public land and the legal need to amend its mining permit with the DEQ.

Kennecott’s relationship with the DEQ has been questioned since the beginning of the law-making process in 2004.

At the same time, science not conducive to an honest approval of Kennecott’s plans has been suppressed while public comment has been nearly entirely disregarded.  The Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Deputy Director, Skip Pruss, has gone so far as to refer to public comment as “chaff.”

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) treaty rights with the US government have been equally disregarded, as well as KBIC’s  concerns with blasting into and fencing-off Eagle Rock, a culturally sensitive and sacred rock outcropping on the Yellow Dog Plains.

State legislators and officials have assisted Kennecott by presenting approval of their mine as simply a legal and legislative process, disregarding the power of ordinary citizens to effectively stop development of an unpopular mining plan.

So….What IS the Deal?

For years prior to final DEQ approval of mining, groundwater and air permits for the Eagle Project Kennecott maintained it would operate “a small underground mine” covering “less than 90 acres” and having little impact on the ecology of the Yellow Dog Plains, claiming “the relatively small footprint of the project means less impact to the environment and community.”

Less than a week after the DEQ’s approval, in December, 2007, Rio Tinto announced plans to open up to six additional metallic mining projects within a 50 mile radius of Eagle.  In November, Rio Tinto Copper CEO, Bret Clayton, told a group of Australian investors, “At Eagle we are also focused on six further adjacent prospects, which may give us the potential to extend the mine life beyond 30 years at its current scheduled production rate.”

One of the six additional projects, the sarcastically-named “Keweenaw BIC” deposit is located on KBIC reservation land, near the Copper Country State Forest.

Less than two weeks following Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approval of Kennecott’s reclamation plan and a surface use lease permit,  the Alger-Delta Rural Electric Association and Kennecott issued a joint news release, “Powerline Upgrade Sparks Benefits for Big Bay and the Environment,” confirming that Alger-Delta would supply Kennecott with power for its Eagle Project mine.

Alger-Delta has already begun clearing timber for the $6.4 million power plan, despite lacking Champion Township approval to run the line to the mine site.

Even Tom Harrell, Alger-Delta’s General Manager, has played a role in presenting the mine as a “done deal.”  In discussions with Alger-Delta members, Harrell claims that “Kennecott has received five out of five permits to build and operate the mine,” ignoring that Kennecott has yet to receive an Underground Injection Control permit from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

At a February 22, “Citizen Advisory Group” (CAG) meeting Kennecott planned a PR coup to announce plans for its processing facility, in Humboldt.  Eagle Project manager, Jon Cherry, recently referred to Humboldt as a future “regional milling facility” and “industrial complex.”

Kennecott ended the meeting when local citizens, organized by Yellow Dog Summer, addressed the board and noted that the CAG did not adequately represent local opinion.

CAG member, Jessica Mistak, from the DNR’s Fisheries Division, commented that parts of the process have been defined by a “lack of transparency.” Mistak noted that she first heard about Kennecott’s power plans in the local newspaper and was never briefed on them during DNR discussions or negotiations with Kennecott.

Next Steps

Kennecott has claimed it would begin breaking ground in May, 2008, although a contested case hearing with the DEQ has not concluded and a court case on the DNR decision will not begin for weeks.  Appeals of the decision are expected upon conclusion of the contested case.

The contested case is being heard by Administrative Law Judge Richard A. Patterson, a former DEQ employee.  Following weeks of testimony, Patterson will present an opinion to DEQ Director, Steven Chester, who will likely continue with approval of the project.  Prior to his DEQ appointment, Chester worked for a law firm that assists Dow Chemical in softening environmental regulations and reducing company liability regarding extensive dioxin contamination in the Saginaw/Midland area.

Further, the EPA has yet to consider Kennecott’s application for an injection permit.  The company plans to inject 184,000,000 gallons of treated mine wastewater an aquifer considered one of the most easily-contaminated in the US.  Once a preliminary decision is made, the EPA must hold public hearings before reaching a final decision.

Most importantly is the role that citizens will still play in opposing metallic sulfide mining.  As citizens have already delayed the Eagle Project by 2 years, it is important to realize the effectiveness of a highly-committed grassroots effort in stopping or stalling major mining projects.

In spite of corrupt local and state government relationships with transnational mining companies, projects have been stopped by citizens around the world, including communities in Crandon, Wisconsin; Peru; Ecuador and Ontario.  Citizens in West Papua are currently suing Rio Tinto in US District Court over human rights and environmental violations at the company’s Grasberg Mine.

One week after a controversial decision by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to permit a sulfide mine in the central Upper Peninsula, the National Wildlife Federation, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Huron Mountain Club and Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve today filed a contested case petition and a lawsuit against the MDEQ as the first step in a legal challenge to halt the mine.

“The opponents of the mine have presented MDEQ with over 1000 pages of unequivocal evidence that Kennecott’s proposed sulfide mine does not meet the state’s legal requirements and would result in profound pollution, impairment, and destruction of air, water and other natural resources,” Michelle Halley, attorney for NWF and the other co-petitioners explained. “The MDEQ has issued permits that are based upon defective, inadequate and incomplete applications and are therefore illegal,” she added.

The MDEQ granted approval of all three permits to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company on December 14, 2007. The contested case and lawsuit will focus directly on Michigan’s new nonferrous metallic mining law and the MDEQ’s failure to enforce the law and the prescribed standards and rules.

“Opponents of the mine have consistently fought the project because the construction and operation of the mine, as proposed, will result in the pollution of the environment and the destruction of natural resources in the Yellow Dog Plains due to scientific and engineering defects in the design of the mine. The contested case and lawsuit will address these issues, including the likelihood of subsidence of the mine, the probability of acid mine drainage, the irreversible impact of wetlands drawdown that far exceeds Kennecott’s assumptions, and the pollution of the groundwater and the air,” Halley said.

While legal action to challenge the mine’s safety and environmental impact has long been an option for opponents, Halley said a telling announcement this week by Kennecott’s parent company, Rio Tinto, fortified the resolve of the opposition. In the December 17 announcement, a Rio Tinto official said the company is now focused on six additional prospects in the region.

“We had long suspected that this was merely the first in a series of new mines, but hiding that information until after the MDEQ approval was announced is certainly contrary to the “good neighbor” image Kennecott has sought to portray. Whether they knew or not, the MDEQ and the Governor have egg on their faces. Let’s hope Rebecca Humphries puts an end, at least, to the notion of letting Kennecott use state-owned land as its pollution receptacle,” Halley commented.

On January 10, Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director Humphries is expected to announce her decision on a Kennecott request to lease state land for the purpose of constructing surface facilities. If allowed by the DNR, Kennecott would be granted exclusive use of 120 acres of state property for a period of at least 40 years.

With the prospect of multiple sulfide mines looming, Halley said the state must be compelled to fully apply the legal standards to the first permit and has failed to do so.

“Setting a precedent that starts with defective, incomplete, inaccurate applications and ends with a dangerous new mine is not in the best interest of the people of Michigan, nor its environment. NWF and our allies are fully prepared to exhaust all options,” the attorney said. Halley said that additional legal measures are also being prepared and will be filed within days.