As the result of tightly-controlled verbal public comment, few participated in that part of the PolyMet DEIS process; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

Hundreds of PolyMet Mining Company supporters were bussed to public meetings in Aurora and Blaine to provide comments on the company’s draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the proposed NorthMet project.  The organizing effort was combined with a public relations blitz of endorsements from Minnesota state and federal politicians -including the late endorsement of Senator Al Franken – the Minnesota AFL-CIO, construction groups and the Chamber of Commerce.  Despite the large turnout, the public was unable to speak at either meeting.

“The ‘public hearings’ didn’t actually allow public comments to the audience,” said retired miner, Bob Tammen.  “The only oral comments allowed were by individuals to stenographers in a tightly monitored room separate from the auditorium.  That meant that the only outside speakers allowed were Iron Range legislators.”

Citizens wanting to give verbal public comment registered here in order to speak, privately, with a stenographer; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

In a new public hearing format, described as “enhanced” by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), public comments were severely restricted with the only speakers allowed to voice opinions on the project being staunch political supporters of PolyMet’s NorthMet proposal.  State Senator David Tomassoni and State Representative Thomas Rukavina gave speeches at the hearing in Aurora, on Wednesday, while State Senator Thomas Bakk chimed in at the Blaine hearing, the following day. Both Rukavina and Bakk are running for governor in the 2010 election.

Rukavina criticized the DNR and Governor Tim Pawlenty for silencing the public and used his unique opportunity to promote his gubernatorial campaign.

“If I were Governor,” said Rukavina, “the public would have been allowed to speak.”

Supporters claim PolyMet’s NorthMet project would provide metals necessary for what is being called a “green economy” that produces wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, batteries and solar panels.  Over the past decade, the mining industry has attempted, rather successfully, to recraft its dirty image through a massive global public relations effort to frame mining operations as synonymous with sustainable development.

“The new green economy is ready to explode,” said Senator Tomassoni, at the Aurora hearing.

Retired schoolteacher, Elanne Palcich disagrees and maintains that projects like PolyMet’s are anything but environmentally friendly.

“Mining ninety-nine percent waste rock is not green and not sustainable,” says Palcich.  “This mine is only green for a few top investors who hope to make huge profits on the precious metals while the going is good.”

A statement on PolyMet’s website claims that “by providing these valuable metals while meeting strict environmental regulations, PolyMet will help U.S. consumers practice sustainability, as well.”

Representative Rukavina said that metals from the NorthMet mine would be used to create numerous “green” products.

“Whether you support this project or have concerns, no one will dispute that we need these metals,” said Rukavina.

But Bob Tammen says the metals shouldn’t come from water-rich Minnesota.

“Every Polymet meeting I’ve been to has a coffee pot but nobody says we should grow coffee in Minnesota because we use it here,” said Tammen.  “We aren’t a great area for growing coffee; likewise, we aren’t a great area for mining copper.  We’re all wetlands.”

“I’m probably more against it because of the economics than environmentally,” Tammen told the Mesabi Daily News.  “Historically, any region that relies on resources and mining does not do as well as other areas. People just sit around and wait for the mining companies to provide some jobs that come and go,’’ Tammen said.

Others have concerns coming from an environmental and public health standpoint.  After reviewing the DEIS, the Friends of the Boundary Waters has outlined some of the more major environmental and public health concerns with PolyMet’s proposal on their website.  According to the group,

Water leaching from the waste rock piles is expected to be contaminated for up to 2,000 years

The West Mine Pit will overflow at Mine Year 65 (45 years after expected mine closure), contaminating the adjacent Partridge River with sulfates and heavy metals

Groundwater at the mine site is expected to exceed water quality standards

Due to structural instability, the tailings basin has a “low margin of safety”

Al Trippel, an environmental consultant with Environmental Resources Management (ERM), based out of London, England, gave a presentation on PolyMet’s DEIS.  The Minnesota DNR hired Trippel’s firm to conduct the “third-party” assessment of PolyMet’s project, not the first time Trippel has been promoted as an independent source.

Trippel acted as Aquila Resource’s representative throughout Michigan’s “Part 632″ statute and rules process that crafted legislation regulating the metallic sulfide mining industry. Trippel is currently on Aquila’s payroll, and was responsible for conducting baseline environmental studies necessary prior to submitting a mine application for the company’s proposed “Back Forty” project, located along the Menominee River, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.  In December 2008 Trippel gave a presentation, in Menominee, Michigan, that was advertised by Aquila, in a local newspaper, as being held “in response to public requests for unbiased, educational, fact-driven information from an expert.”

While DNR, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers staff were on hand to answer public questions, the US Forest Service, an agency cooperating on the DEIS, was not available at the public meetings.

Forest Service involvement in the PolyMet proposal is significant.  In order to open the NorthMet project, the company must either secure a controversial land exchange with the Forest Service or rely on a bill introduced by US Representative Jim Oberstar and US Senator Amy Klobuchar that would allow PolyMet to directly own 6,700 acres of the Superior National Forest.  The move would also eliminate requirements requiring consultation and cooperation with Native American tribes, under an 1854 treaty with the US government.

In addition to the land exchange bill, PolyMet may also benefit from a revolving door relationship between state pollution enforcement agencies and the mining industry.

Brad Moore, recently the commissioner of the MPCA, now works for Barr

Ann Glumac (in blue), former deputy MPCA commissioner, currently a PolyMet consultant, at Aurora meeting; Photo courtesy Lori Andresen

Engineering, a Minneapolis-based consulting firm working with PolyMet, while Ann Glumac, former deputy MPCA commissioner, is assisting PolyMet as a consultant.

In 2007 Franconia Minerals hired former Director of the state DNR’s Division of Lands & Minerals, William Brice, as the company’s Director of Government & Community Relations.  Franconia is currently exploring a deposit directly underneath Birch Lake, which feeds into the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

For information on providing public comment – due by February 3, 2010 – please visit the Minnesota DNR’s PolyMet page.

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.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources Director, Rebecca Humphries, has delayed, indefinitely, an expected decision on Kennecott Mineral’s permits for its Eagle Project.  Approval of a surface use lease permit and approval of the mining and reclamation plan have been delayed over concerns regarding ground subsidence, water flowage into the mine and siting of surface facilities.

At a December 6, 2007 Natural Resources Commission (NRC) meeting, commissioners recommended approval of Kennecott’s permits if the company could satisfy “DNR requests for additional, and comprehensive, information.  In response, Kennecott submitted information that has proven to be inadequate.

According to DNR Resource Management Deputy, Mindy Koch, Humphries found it “very, very important that the department do a thorough review”  and that the director “is holding the decision until we get the clarification we need. We still believe there are outstanding issues we need clarification on.”

Recently, a Kennecott spokeswoman, Debra Muchmore, said that Kennecott fully expected the DNR to approve the company’s permits at the January NRC meeting.

The Michigan DEQ previously approved Kennecott’s mining, air quality and groundwater discharge permits on December 14, 2007, and did not take issue with problems in Kennecott’s mining plan.

This delay marks the first instance, at the state level, of any measure of critical scrutiny regarding Kennecott’s permit applications.  Michigan legislators and the Governor have been largely silent on the issue and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) was forced to revoke the agency’s preiliminary decision, last March, when opposition groups discovered a report, critical of the project, that was suppressed from the public record.

Click Below for More Articles:

Lansing State Journal

Detriot Free Press

M-Live.com

Houston Chronicle

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.

On January 9, 2007, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted preliminary approval of Kennecott Mineral’s Eagle Mine permit. The potential metallic sulfide mine is on the Yellow Dog Plains, within a few miles of the shores of Lake Superior. This decision should not have come as a surprise to anyone. According to one member of the DEQ, “the DEQ [is] leaning toward approving the application regardless of any deficiencies.” This fact was already clear to anyone that has attended DEQ hearings/public forums on the issue. To be as polite as possible, the DEQ has found it difficult to mask their disregard for us Yoopers and citizens of Michigan.

Citizens rally in front of Michigan Capitol Building, December 2005; Photo courtesy Andy Gregg

Michigan DEQ noted 91 technical deficiencies in Kennecott’s original application. In response, Kennecott submitted new information that addressed more than half of these shortcomings. Certain deficiencies have yet to be addressed: an adequate plan for monitoring groundwater near chemical storage facilities and for monitoring water quality downstream from the holding basins; an adequate plan to monitor levels of air contamination in the mine and how those contaminates might make their way into the groundwater; adequate information on a “rigorous analysis technique” in relationship to subsidence and the stability of the roof of the underground mine; adequate tables and maps describing the mine’s impact on hydrology.

It is this deficient application that is awaiting final DEQ approval in May.

While Kennecott’s dismal environmental record has been utilized in fighting the approval of the Eagle Project application, one aspect of the company’s record has been overlooked. From the onset, the majority of opposition groups have been unwilling to emphasize Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s record regarding Geneva Convention and UN Resolution violations. Discussion of the company’s activities in Ontario, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Australia, and Chile is avoided in an attempt to not appear confrontational, emotional, or radical – perhaps for funding reasons and to ensure a seat at the DEQ’s table.

Citizen opposition to a potential Exxon/Rio Algom mine, south of Crandon, led to the formation of the Wisconsin Review Commission. Chaired by Secretary of State Douglas LaFollette, the Commission recorded testimony by indigenous people from Alaska, Colombia, Ontario and New Mexico regarding Exxon’s mining and oil drilling activities and chemical and oil leaks. When the Commission released its report on March 24, 1995, LaFollette urged the state legislature to approve “bad actor” legislation, requiring the state to consider a company’s past performance before approving state mining permits.

Professor Al Gedicks, of University Wisconsin, LaCrosse, used this kind of information in assisting Wisconsin’s opposition to both the Crandon and Flambeau mines. Gedick’s vast experience and exceptional public speaking skills have been little-utilized in Michigan’s opposition to the Eagle Project. There must be openness on the part of the organized opposition, in Michigan, to use everything it can, particularly those tactics that have proven successful, if the intent is to prevent Kennecott’s mine from opening.

Rio Algom’s (a Rio Tinto subsidiary) Elliot Lake, Ontario, uranium mine, only a few hours east of Marquette, MI, is one facet of this record that should concern citizens of the Michigan, particularly as global mining companies, salivating over likely DEQ cooperation, are currently exploring the area for uranium.

From 1956 to 1959, Elliot Lake was the primary supplier of uranium yellowcake to the US military, which was used to manufacture this country’s massive nuclear arsenal. The Elliot Lake and Rossing, Namibia facilities have also supplied Great Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons arsenal. Now, more than 60 years after the US dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Canadian-based Cameco Corporation’s current exploration (a joint venture with Bitterroot Resources Ltd.) for uranium in the Upper Peninsula should cause all of us concern. There are currently two large markets for uranium: to fuel nuclear power plants, and for use in US and Israeli weapons systems. Prior to the 1940s there was not a large market for mined uranium. Rio Tinto created a market for its uranium then. The current US administration’s plan for a “new nuclear weapons system” hinges perhaps on the potential for uranium extraction in our area.

At Elliot Lake, numerous worker deaths have been caused by inhalation of uranium dust. Also, the local Serpent River Band of Chippewa community suffered many horrendous birth defects due to uranium poisoning of the Serpent River. Driving through Elliot Lake, via Highway 17, one will find billboards of studio-produced “nature” photos with the motto, “Elliot Lake: Footsteps to Nature.” This type of billboard is found only in this, the most environmentally-devastated part of Ontario.

On June 12, 1982, the largest public demonstration in US history occurred in Central Park. Close to one million people rallied for a moratorium on US and Russian nuclear weapon production. Although each successive US administration has ignored continued public opposition to nuclear weapons production, there remains a groundswell of support for an end to uranium extraction, the construction of nuclear power plants, and nuclear weapons production.

US citizens are becoming aware of these company’s records regarding uranium extraction and metallic sulfide mining. Today, the environmental and economic devastation caused by the global mining industry has become a part of our collective conscience. Most citizens now know something of the suffering caused by uranium extraction in the Four Corners area of the southwestern US and acid mine drainage in the Rocky Mountain Region. Even supporters of the Eagle Project recognize this long and inglorious history.

Massive citizen opposition, due largely to discussion of Exxon/Rio Algom, BHP-Billiton, and Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s track records, led to Wisconsin’s passage of a “moratorium” on metallic sulfide mining. The law requires that a company provide examples of one such mine that was operated for at least 10 years, closed for at least 10 years and successfully reclaimed – without polluting ground or surface water.

Mining giant BHP-Billiton’s subsidiary, Nicolet Minerals Co. attempted to bypass the moratorium, in an attempt to secure approval for a mine south of Crandon. BHP cited the Sacaton Mine, in Casa Grande, Arizona, the Cullaton mine in the Nunavut Territory, Canada, and the McLaughlin mine in Lower Lake, California.

Cullaton was used as an example of a mine that was closed 10 years without polluting and McLaughlin an example of a mine operating cleanly for 10 years. According to DNR attorney Charles Hammer, Wisconsin DNR decided in May, 2002 that the company didn’t submit enough information about the Sacaton Mine and the agency couldn’t decide if it was a good example.

Cullaton had not been closed for 10 years at that point and samples taken from a pool of water near dead vegetation showed acidic levels that breached the mine’s water license. In the case of Sacaton, Nicolet Minerals offered to submit more information, however, Wisconsin DNR is still unable to approve a metallic sulfide mine in the state, based upon the moratorium’s criteria.

Michigan DEQ has noted from the beginnings of the Michigan statute and rules process that they will not allow consideration of a moratorium, going so far as to specify that discussion of Wisconsin’s mining moratorium law would not be permitted. In 2004, the DEQ omitted this writer’s public comments regarding Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s global track record, fully cognizant that this same discussion in Wisconsin led directly to the moratorium. If we are to prevent, if not this mine, a future of metallic sulfide and uranium mining in the Upper Peninsula, Michigan citizens must be willing to discuss this egregious track record. It worked in causing citizen outrage in Wisconsin and there is little reason to expect anything different in our situation.

At a May 2, 2005, “Citizens Advisory Group” meeting, I asked Jon Cherry, Eagle Project Manager, if there was an example of a metallic sulfide mine that could pass scrutiny under Wisconsin’s mining law. “There is one in Nevada,” Cherry replied. When asked what the mine’s name was Cherry said that he was “not sure.” The fact is that every metallic sulfide mine in the world has adversely affected the environment, which is why Kennecott, and others, cannot mine in Wisconsin.

Although the company cannot pass scrutiny under Wisconsin’s moratorium law, Kennecott refers to its now-closed Flambeau Mine as an example of a successful metallic sulfide mine. Wisconsin DNR and company monitoring of the Flambeau River shows levels of mine contaminants in sediment and crayfish to be 10 to 100 times higher than Kennecott’s independent data anticipated during the permit process for that mine. Following the disclosure of these results, Kennecott ended the process of collecting and testing fish, sediment, and crayfish samples. This mine is currently undergoing various stages of cleanup. The area’s topsoil was contaminated to such an extent as to require its removal from the site in 2003.

Following the closure of the Flambeau Mine, Rusk County’s unemployment rate was higher than it had been before the mine was opened. Twice during the 4-year life of the mine (1993 to 1997), the county had the highest unemployment rate in the state.

A popular argument among supporters of the Eagle Project is that the Upper Peninsula has a rich history of mining and, concurrently, that “we need jobs.” Apparently, these few supporters, such as TV-6’s Brad van Sluyters, feel that the benefit of a handful of jobs in the short-term will offset an overall loss of jobs and tourism dollars. There are also high costs pertaining to highway maintenance and construction as well as mine reclamation that will inevitably rely on local taxpayer dollars if the UP is converted into a metallic sulfide mining district.

In Wisconsin, Kennecott successfully engaged in what became known as the “consensus process” that eventually secured its bid to open the Flambeau Mine. The consensus process effectively co-opted the energies of the opposition, resulting in lax rules regarding the mine’s function. Here, as in Wisconsin, Kennecott has been able to help write the very rules that will govern their potential mining operation. Due to the opposition’s involvement in the statute/rules process, the DEQ and Kennecott now claim that laws governing metallic sulfide mining are the “strictest in the nation” and the process has been inclusive of all parties involved.

In retrospect, citizen participation, conditional on the DEQ allowing discussion of a moratorium and Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s track record, would have proven invaluable. Much of the organized opposition’s energy was spent on this process. Fortunately, citizen discontent remains high. In the Fall of 2006, Save the Wild UP collected signatures from over 10,000 citizens opposed to Kennecott’s proposed mine.

The mining battle in Wisconsin provides a contemporary example of massive citizen opposition to unsafe mineral extraction. It has been proven on numerous occasions that ordinary citizens, when persistent, can effectively protect their local economy and land, air, and water. This has only come when refusing to play by company rules, whether or not those rules are upheld by public officials.

Citizens must continue to protest this potential metallic sulfide mine. Protesting is relatively cheap and more effective than many people realize. During Wisconsin’s battle for a moratorium more than 400 citizens protested on the Capitol steps. In Marquette, on August 4, 2005, over 400 citizens showed for the first DEQ public hearing on the Eagle project. Nearly every single public comment, representing a wide range of issues, was in opposition to the mine. Despite state geologist Hal Fitch’s remarks that much of the testimony raised “premature questions,” the DEQ was visibly rattled by the large opposition. Since, they have attempted to dilute the power of these mass gatherings. Tactics include holding hearings over longer periods of time, during work hours, and when college students and faculty are away during breaks.

Upcoming DEQ hearings take place at Northern Michigan University’s University Center, in Marquette, MI on March 6, 7, and 8 from 1:00 pm to 4:30 pm and 6:00pm to 9:00 pm. A large crowd, as there was 2 years ago, will send a powerful message to the Governor that this mine will not be welcomed. Stopping this mine requires only that we all defy DEQ expectations and simply show up.

Folk singer Utah Phillips said that “those ruining the Earth have names and addresses.” They also have shareholder meetings and track records. We need to utilize this information in order protect public health, a sustainable economy, and our waters of Lake Superior.

References:

Bitterroot Resources Ltd.

Gedicks, Al. The New Resource Wars: Native and Environmental Struggles Against Multinational Corporations. Cambridge. South End Press. 1993.

Gedicks, Al. “What You Should Know About the Proposed Crandon/Mole Lake Mine” Wisconsin Resources Protection Council. August 1999.

Gedicks, Al. Resource Rebels: Native Challenges to Mining and Oil Companies. Cambridge. South End Press. 2001.

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. “Contaminated Discharge Continues at Kennecott Mineral’s Flambeau Mine.” April 5, 2006

LaDuke, Winona. All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Cambridge. South End Press. 1999.

Moody, Roger. Plunder! London. PARTIZANS. 1991.

Moody, Roger. The Gulliver Files: Mines People and Land: A Global Battlefield. London. Minewatch. 1992.Northwoods Wilderness Recovery. News Release. December 15, 2006

The Real Mining News. “Moratorium Example Mines Nothing Like Crandon” Rusk County Citizen Action Group. March 1999.

Wisconsin DNR, 1997 Act 171. Mining Moratorium Law.

Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, “Keepers of the Water.” VHS. 1997

WLUCTV-6. “DEQ Ruling.” Presented by Brad van Sluyters. January 13, 2007.

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. New York. Harper Collins. 2003.