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.

Sticker distributed before meeting by Rio Tinto's Senior Advisor for Government and Community Relations, Chantae Lessard

West Ishpeming, Michigan - Last week Rio Tinto’s head spokesperson for the proposed Eagle Mine, Deb Muchmore, informed AP that she is the new spokeswoman for a “citizen” campaign:  Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs.  Today’s public meeting regarding Rio Tinto’s proposed haul road, for the mine, featured public comment from a number of current and potential Rio Tinto employees, many sporting pro-road stickers passed out by Chantae Lessard, Senior Advisor for Government and Community Relations for Rio Tinto.

The organizing effort paid off for the company with a large turnout in support of the project and, as is the case at any meeting concerning the proposed mine, jobs were a main talking point among Rio Tinto supporters with high unemployment, locally and statewide, cited as an incentive to approve the road plan.  Details of perceived employment benefits were not outlined.

While advertised as a “multi-use” road that would benefit the logging, gravel and tourism industries, and only incidentally the mining industry, the road, as designed, goes from the proposed Eagle Mine to the proposed milling facility, in Humboldt, the project will not get off the ground if Rio Tinto can’t use it as part of its mining operations and the company is paying the entire $50 million cost to build the new road.

On September 29, Rio Tinto’s chief operating officer for the haul road project, Ken Wooley, insisted that the road was not specifically for the proposed Eagle Mine:  “The road is not tied to the mine. This is truly a multi-use road.”

At today’s meeting, Mark Holmes, a concerned citizen, said , “As of right now it [the road] has nothing to do with the mine – although in the future it might have.”

However, the Marquette County Road Commission was not sure if the road would move forward regardless of whether the Eagle Mine would go in or not.  Darryll Sundberg asked Rio Tinto’s lobbyist and community relations manager, Matt Johnson, “is this road going to be built whether or not the mine goes through?”

Johnson said that “depending on whether or not the mine goes in” Rio Tinto would have to consult with other partners in the project to decide whether or not the road should move forward.

Adrian Baker, from Big Bay, told the commission that while the Pledge of Allegiance was spoken at the beginning of the meeting,  “this country was not founded on catering to British business interests.”  Baker showed the audience that Marquette County will actually lose tax money with Rio Tinto’s plan to build a new road, rather than use existing roadways, to much laughter from the audience.

One man, claiming to represent “the tourism industry” said that Lindberg & Sons, the contractor planned to build Rio Tinto’s road, has “been building state and federal highways for years.  I can’t imagine that they couldn’t build a quality road that would meet the county road commission’s specifications.”

According to an expose by the New York Times, Lindberg & Sons is one of few known violators of the federal Clean Water Act in Marquette County.

Safety concerns weren’t addressed at the meeting.  According to a confusing statement on Rio Tinto’s website, the company believes that using existing roadways would be safer for the public than building a new road:

“Ore-carrying trucks, familiar to area residents, would likely follow the AAA and County Road 510 to County Road 550 to area rail connections, which would then transport the ore to existing offsite processing facilities. Use of existing truck routes will help ensure public safety and minimize burden on area roads.”

Jackie Koski, Humboldt Township trustee assured the commission that the township was in full support of Rio Tinto’s project, while Deb Pellow and Bob Struck indicated that the Marquette County Board was also in full support of the project.

Michigamme Township supervisor, John Olson, expressed his township’s support of the project.  A visibly agitated Olson said that it is “ironic” that mine opponents drove to the meeting in metal cars and noted that he saw “two people” talking on cell phones outside of the meeting hall.

“How do they get here if they don’t use mining projects to get here,” said Olson.

According to Rio Tinto’s John Meier, the company plans to fill in wetlands to construct the road over the Yellow Dog River, Mulligan Creek, Wildcat Canyon Creek, the Dead River, Voelkers Creek, Koops Creek, Second Creek and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River.

Marquette County, Michigan - The Walk to Eagle Rock, a sacred Native American site on the Yellow Dog Plains, on Sunday, Aug.2, 2009, was a

Over 175 people walk to Eagle Rock, on the Yellow Dog Plains; Photo courtesy Michele Bourdieu

community event, bringing together people of at least three, if not more, generations — Native and non-Native — from Michigan, neighboring Great Lakes states and even from the far West.

To read the rest of this article, by Michele Bourdieu, please visit Keweenaw Now.

Marquette, Michigan — Last weekend, Aug. 1-2, “Protect the Earth 2009,” the second annual Great Lakes Community Gathering of people opposed to metallic sulfide and uranium mining in the

Utah activist, Tim DeChristopher, presents at Northern Michigan University on August 1

Upper Peninsula and nearby Great Lakes states, offered workshops with expert speakers; musical entertainment; Native American dance, drumming and spiritual ceremonies; and a two-mile walk to Eagle Rock. This Native American sacred site is a proposed target of the “Eagle” Project, Kennecott-Rio Tinto’s potential metallic sulfide mine on the Yellow Dog Plains near Marquette.

For the complete article by Michele Bourdieu, please visit Keweenaw Now.

See below for an excellent speech given by Susan LaFernier, Vice Chair of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, at Eagle Rock on August 2.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has declined a petition requesting that the rare coaster brook trout be listed on the federal endangered species list.  The decision is in response to a petition, filed in 2006 by the Sierra Club and the privately-owned Huron Mountain Club, seeking federal protection of the trout in an effort to thwart mining giant, Rio Tinto’s (parent company of Kennecott Minerals) plans to open a metallic sulfide mine near coaster habitat, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

A USFWS news release noted that “coaster brook trout in the Great Lakes are not a distinct population segment and therefore are not eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act.”  Additionally, the agency decided that the coaster “does not make up a significant portion of the range of the brook trout.”

Coaster brook trout; Photo courtesy of the Minnesota DNR

In lieu of a federal listing for the coaster, the USFWS decided to initiate a “native brook trout status assessment” in order to better understand the “brook trout in its entire range.”  According to the agency, “this would help determine whether any brook trout population meets criteria as a distinct population segment or constitutes a significant portion of the species’ range.”

“We know coaster brook trout in the Great Lakes face a number of challenges, as do many Great Lakes fisheries,” said Tom Melius, the Service’s Midwest Regional Director.  “The Service is committed to its ongoing coaster brook trout conservation and rehabilitation efforts.”

In part due to an extensive lobbying and political donation regime, Rio Tinto remains on a hot streak with government agencies.  The company has yet to find itself on the losing end of decisions made by federal and state agencies involving the controversial Eagle Project mine and, despite claims that Eagle’s design is incompetent and, potentially, fraudulent, the company isn’t expected to lose the support of government officials any time soon.

Rio Tinto’s metallic sulfide mine project, in northern Marquette County, could threaten what the USFWS considers to be the last remaining, naturally reproducing, population of coasters on the southern shore of Lake Superior.  Coaster reproduction is dependent upon stable water temperatures produced by groundwater upwelling and is also affected by increased stream sedimentation.  Fish populations can be decimated by an influx of acid mine drainage and increased levels of toxic heavy metals.  Rio Tinto plans to release 184,000,000 gallons of treated wastewater into groundwater adjacent to the Salmon Trout if it receives an Underground Injection Control permit (UIC) from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Salmon Trout River; Photo courtesy of Doug Cornett

According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Isle Royale National Park, located in Lake Superior, provides habitat for two, distinct, strains of coasters, Tobin Harbor and Siskiwit.  The DNR raises and stocks these strains, as well as the Nipigon strain.  Efforts have been made, recently, to reintroduce coasters into the Mosquito, Seven Mile and Hurricane Rivers at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.  According to the DNR, the coasters, once abundant in Lake Superior tributaries and along the coast, faced a rapid decline as a result of overlogging in the 19th century, overfishing and introduction of the sea lamprey, in the 1950s.  The introduction of non-native fish species, such as Pacific salmon also contributed to the decline.

The Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited (MCTU) has expressed concern for the coaster’s safety.

On April 10, 2007, Patrick Kochanny, MCTU Chairman, issued a press release stating that “Trout Unlimited and the Michigan Council strongly oppose this project, and believe that it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Salmon Trout River to deny Kennecott’s application at this time….We are seriously concerned that analysis and review of the permit application may not have been conducted properly.”

Kochanny said this position was made at a March 30, 2007 meeting, following an extensive review of Kennecott’s mining application by “outside experts” and commented that “there is no room for error” when considering projected impacts to the Salmon-Trout River spawning grounds.

In addition to the coaster decision, the USFWS has found itself involved in another facet of Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s mine plan.  In September 2008, the agency requested the EPA to determine whether Kennecott’s mine plan would affect the endangered Kirtland’s warbler and the threatened Canada lynx.  The USFWS noted that the warbler was found, near the mine project area, and that the region hosts habitat that could contain the Canada lynx.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is postponing a decision on the listing of the coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act. The agency is expecting to reach a final decision by April 15, 2009.

In February, 2006, the Sierra Club and Huron Mountain Club (HMC) filed a joint petition with the USFWS to seek protection for the coaster, under the Endangered Species Act.

The USFWS cited the recent completion of a genetics study as the reason for the delay. Kim Scribner, professor at Michigan State University’s (MSU) Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, co-authored the study with other researchers from MSU and Michigan Technological University.

Jessica Hogrefe, biologist from the USFWS’s Division of Endangered Species, said that the new genetics information is “important to consider” and that preparing for a decision on the coaster is “a high priority.”

According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Isle Royale National Park provides habitat for two, distinct, strains of coasters, Tobin Harbor and Siskiwit. The DNR raises and stocks these strains, as well as the Nipigon strain. Efforts have been made, recently, to reintroduce coasters into the Mosquito, Seven Mile and Hurricane Rivers at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. According to the DNR, the coasters, once abundant in Lake Superior tributaries and along the coast, faced a rapid decline as a result of overlogging in the 19th century, overfishing and introduction of the sea lamprey, in the 1950s. The introduction of non-native fish species, such as Pacific salmon also contributed to the decline.

Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s metallic sulfide mine project, on the Yellow Dog Plains, threatens the last remaining, naturally reproducing, population of coasters on the southern shore of Lake Superior. Coaster reproduction is dependent upon stable water temperatures produced by groundwater upwelling and is also affected by increased stream sedimentation. Fish populations are also affected by acid mine drainage and increased levels of toxic heavy metals. Kennecott plans to release 184,000,000 gallons of treated wastewater into groundwater adjacent to the Salmon Trout if it receives an Underground Injection Control permit (UIC) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Kennecott has already contributed to soil erosion into the Salmon Trout River. In April 2005, a culvert that Kennecott designed and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approved, failed, dumping an estimated 98 tons of sediment into a branch of the Salmon Trout River.

Kennecott, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, both neglected to consider the effects of blasting on the coaster population. As a result of fish studies showing the effects of detonating explosives nearby, Alaska now has laws protecting fish from the effects of underground blasting. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, blasting “within, beneath or adjacent” to a “fish-bearing waterbody” can damage fish eggs and traumatize or kill fish, causing damage to scales and internal organs, primarily the swim bladder.

The Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited (MCTU) has, repeatedly, expressed concern for the coaster’s safety.

On April 10, 2007, Patrick Kochanny, MCTU Chairman, issued a press release stating that “Trout Unlimited and the Michigan Council strongly oppose this project, and believe that it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Salmon Trout River to deny Kennecott’s application at this time….We are seriously concerned that analysis and review of the permit application may not have been conducted properly.”

Kochanny said this position was made at a March 30, 2007 meeting, following an extensive review of Kennecott’s mining application by “outside experts” and commented that “there is no room for error” when considering projected impacts to the Salmon-Trout River spawning grounds.

Hogrefe emphasized that the agency is still accepting information up until April 15 and the sooner they receive information, the better.

The USFWS has found itself involved in another facet of Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s mine plan. In September 2008, the agency requested the EPA to determine whether Kennecott’s mine plan would affect the endangered Kirtland’s warbler and the threatened Canada lynx. The EPA will also have to consider the threatened gray wolf. The USFWS noted that the warbler was found, near the mine project area, and that the region hosts habitat that could contain the Canada lynx. Because the EPA is mandated only to consider federal law in its actions it cannot consider potential impacts to the coaster until the species is listed under federal jurisdiction.

The EPA is expected to issue a draft decision on Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s injection permit in December 2008. If the coaster is listed, as endangered, following approval of the company’s permit, the EPA would have to reconsider its decision.

The Marquette County Resource Management/Development Department completed a “Hazard Mitigation Plan” for the Marquette County Sheriff’s Department, Emergency Management Division.  The plan, funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), outlines areas of concern to local and regional law enforcement.

The comprehensiveness of the plan is debatable as it lacks any published citations to support its numerous claims.  Perhaps one of the more misplaced and wild claims is that “Terrorism and Sabotage…” represent a significant risk to the County.  The plan also lacks consideration of metallic sulfide and uranium mining as potential risks to groundwater supplies and public health in the area.

The plan ignores, in its sections on “Public Health Emergencies” and “Hazardous Materials,” the possibility for public exposure to uranium contamination.  With multiple mining companies, including Bitterroot Resources and Cameco Corporation, exploring for uranium in the region, consideration of the potential for this highly hazardous substance to impact public health should have been included in the plan.

The potential for uranium contamination is actually very real.  On November 24, 2005, an RSB Logistics semi-truck wrecked on M-117, in Mackinaw County, Michigan. The truck was transporting low-level radioactive calcined mining materials for Cameco from Blind River, Ontario to Blanding, Utah.  The driver drove into the ditch while choking on a piece of beef jerky.  M-117 was closed to traffic between US-2 and M-28. A Cameco hazardous materials team unloaded the cargo.

As with uranium, the potential for impacts to public health with the rail transport of sulfide materials from Kennecott’s Eagle Project and other proposed sites is also very real, and ignored, in the plan.  The plan notes that “over the years, the County has experienced a number of rail incidents, several of which were serious or had the potential to be serious.”  Because Kennecott plans to transport its ore by rail, the Eagle Project should be outlined as a potential risk to public health.

The risks of Kennecott’s projects should have also been considered in the section, “Unstable Ground.”  The plan notes the proven risk for ground subsidence to occur on the Yellow Dog Plains:

“In 1996, significant landslide occurred during a major spring snowmelt along the Yellow Dog River. At least one research paper has been written which identifies that area as geologically unstable. That paper predicts that as the Yellow Dog River and Salmon Trout River systems mature through the natural erosion process, the Salmon Trout River will steal the headwaters of the Yellow Dog River. In this incident, a steep sand slope encompassing approximately 40 acres failed and slid into the channel of the river. Past logging activity, poor road construction, and ditch maintenance may have contributed to this event. Occurring in a remote forested region, the event did not endanger human life or cause significant property damage. It did affect the trout habitat. This event is a good example of what could happen because of building on unstable slopes and improper construction of roads, ditches, and culverts.”

The plan also outlines the potential for water contamination in areas with sandy/porous soils, such as those found on the Yellow Dog Plains:  “Porous soil has rapid permeability…the underlying aquifer is vulnerable to contamination. In addition, the loose soil makes excavation projects in this area difficult. The soils are vulnerable to wind and water erosion.”

In the introduction, the plan notes that, in northwestern Marquette County, “Due to narrow channels and bedrock close to the surface, flash flooding can occur during periods of excessive rain, rapid snowmelt, or blockage by ice or debris.”  This observation is especially relevant as problems associated with heavy rainfall in Rusk County, Wisconsin, in September 1994, caused a tailings pond at Kennecott’s Flambeau Mine to nearly overflow into the Flambeau River, a common occurrence at metallic sulfide mines.  In that instance, the company used sulfide waste rock to give the protective berm an additional four feet and the river came within 3 ½ feet of flooding the mine site.

The Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) ranked the listed risks based upon five measures:  1) history of occurrence, 2) probability of occurrence, 3) potential affected area, 4) impact on county population and, 5) significance of impact.  The LEPC ranked “Terrorism and Sabotage…” higher than industrial building fires, urban flooding,drought, residential structural fires and shoreline flooding/erosion.

The plan lists the “Kennecott Project Eagle Sites” as one of the sites with “terrorist potential.”  The Plan includes a subsection on “Eco-Terrorism”:

“Since 1996, there have been over 600 eco-terrorist events in the United States, including the placement of a bomb at a forestry building at Michigan Technological University in the Upper Peninsula. Several area loggers have reported vandalism to their equipment. The assumption is that they were based upon differing viewpoints on use of the environment. Damage in the U. S. caused by a single eco-terrorist group has exceeded $10 million over a ten-year period. Larger organizations are believed to engage in intelligence gathering against potential targets. However, one of the major problems with eco-terrorism is the number of small cells without organizational structure.”

The eco-terrorist claims likely stem from FBI testimony at a February 12, 2002 House Ecoterror Hearing.  The FBI alleged that the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) had “committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996.”  The FBI, which submitted information for use in the County’s Plan, has never substantiated that the Michigan Tech. incident or vandalism to logging equipment was linked to ELF or ALF.  In recent years, the FBI, at Kennecott’s behest, has questioned three prominent citizens around the Big Bay area regarding their involvement in fighting Kennecott’s Eagle Project.  While “eco-terrorism” activities have not caused a loss of life, the FBI continues to list “eco-terrorists” as the nation’s number one domestic terrorist threat, beating out violent extremist militia groups that adopt a Timothy McVeigh-style ethic.

Rather than highlighting assumed risks stemming from local citizen activity and tacitly branding opponents of mining projects as potential “eco-terrorists,” the County could have considered the high potential for groundwater contamination and rail disasters relating to uranium and metallic sulfide mining activity.  These activities have a proven record of risk to public health and local economic systems, whereas allegations of terrorist threats

Metallic sulfide mining on the Yellow Dog Plains threatens the last remaining naturally reproducing population of the potamodromous Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) on the southern shore of Lake Superior. Because the trout is not located within the boundaries of the actual mine site, Kennecott Mineral’s Environmental Impact Assessment makes no mention of the trout that its operations would invariably impact.[1]

On April 10, 2007, Patrick Kochanny, Chairman of Michigan Trout Unlimited (MCTU) issued a press release stating that “Trout Unlimited and the Michigan Council strongly oppose this project, and believe that it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Salmon Trout River to deny Kennecott’s application at this time.”[2

Kochanny continued: “We are seriously concerned that [the DEQ’s] analysis and review of the permit application may not have been conducted properly.”

This recent position offers a refreshing contrast to MCTU’s previously tepid statements regarding the proposed project.

In February, 2006, the Sierra Club and Huron Mountain Club (HMC) filed a joint petition with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to seek protection for the Coaster Brook Trout, under the Endangered Species Act.[3] USFWS has not taken action nor have the Sierra Club and HMC countered that inaction with a lawsuit.

Carefully ignoring any specifics of the potential threat to the Coasters, the Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited issued a statement, in response to the petition:

1. The means to recovery – whether through habitat restoration and other management actions or the application of the Endangered Species Act – is less important than the ultimate result that these remarkable fish are recovered.”[4]

Certain MCTU local chapters have gone further by insinuating support of the project. Doug Miller, president of the Fred Waara chapter of Trout Unlimited said “it is in Kennecott’s best interest to protect the environment….this company has deep pockets; if something goes wrong, they do have the resources to fix it…we would rather not see a mine on the Yellow Dog Plains, but I believe we need to face reality. If we use the resources then we will have mines. If we have mines, then we need strong regulations to ensure the environment is protected. Instead of trying to kill Kennecott, we should be working in coordination with other environmental groups to ensure that we get the resources that we all seem to want and protect the environment as well.”[5]

There was a degree of frustration at the Wisconsin chapter of Trout Unlimited over Michigan’s inability to effectively protect the trout from the proposed project. In March, 2007, Bill Pielsticker, Legislative Chair of Wisconsin TU said that they “will do what [they] can to see that it is protected. However, we are quite limited….and may be restricted to support for actions [sic] by Michigan TU.”[6]

Following the MCTU press release, Miller says that Fred Waara TU’s position on the project “coincides with that of the Michigan chapter.” Kochanny said this position was made at a March 30, 2007 meeting, following an extensive review of Kennecott’s mining application by “outside experts” and commented that “there is no room for error” when considering projected impacts to the Salmon-Trout River spawning grounds.

1 Kennecott Eagle Mining Co. “Eagle Project Mining Permit Application, Vol. 2: Environmental Impact Assessment,” February, 2006

2 Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited, “Michigan Council Trout Unlimited Stands Firm Against Kennecott Mine Project,” Press Release, April 10, 2007

3 Sierra Club & Huron Mountain Club “Petition for a Rule to List the Anadromous Coaster Brook Trout Under the Endangered Species Act,” February 22, 2006

4 Michigan Chapter TU “TU Statement Regarding Proposal to List Coasters Under the ESA,” MCTU Website

5 Miller, Doug Fred Waara TU Opinion Paper, 2005

6 Pielsticker, Bill (Wisconsin TU), E-mail exchange, March 14, 2007