Author Archives: Save the Wild UP

Aquila Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment – Public Comments of John Engel

Posted on by

DEQ Public Meeting in Stephenson, MI – January 9, 2019

My name is John Engel, a member of the Executive Committee of the John Muir Chapter of the Sierra Club and a retired Project Manager for a consulting engineering company.

The 632-mining permit amended environmental impact assessment Section 2.4.2 groundwater quality states: No known occurrence of contaminated groundwater on the project site was observed in the monitoring wells during the study.

Section 3.4.4 (Foth 2015b) of the environmental impact assessment describes the following mechanisms as potentially affecting groundwater quality.

  • A leak in the closure tailings facility liner, cap and cover system.

A March 11, 2015 publication, Impermeable Basal Structure – With Synthetic Liners by the Geological Survey of Finland states: There is little data available about the field performance of liner materials and the lifetime prediction is usually based only on material tests of the synthetics (including high stress, aggressive fluids, and elevated temperatures), which by no means guarantee the duration of the liners service life, too often causing unsatisfied lifetime predictions. (1)

Will the tailings cap and cover system withstand the increased frequency of severe weather events without eroding or collapsing? The liner system and monitoring technology has not been verified to withstand the test of time. Tailings and waste rock are reactive, creating sulfuric acid, heavy metals when exposed to oxygen and water. The reaction will occur for hundreds of years. When the tailings facility liner fails and the backfilled mine pit waters become acidic, the groundwater will contaminate the marshes, rivers, and streams, adjacent to the mine site. (2)

The tailing management facility is 127.8 acres and approximately 148 ft high containing 4.9 million cubic meters of tailings or approximately 356,000 loads in a 18-yard dump truck. The facility will contain an additional 5.9 million cubic meters of reactive waste rock, approximately 429,000 18-yard dump truck loads.

Who is going to be held responsible and pay for the removal of the waste rock and tailings from the mine site, years after the investors have received their money and Aquila Resources have closed the mine site?

The Sierra Club is very concerned about the Back 40 Mine Project causing catastrophic long-term environmental damage. The location of the mine, processing mill, and reactive tailings storage facility, minimizes the value and fails to protect the quality of the groundwater, including the aquatic life in the Menominee and Shaky Rivers. Environmental damage will affect the states of Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as, despoiling sacred cultural sites of the original home of the Menominee Indian Nation.

Speaking on behalf of the 3.5 million members and supporters of the National Sierra Club, including 150,000 members and supporters of the Michigan Chapter, we strongly oppose risky sulfide mining operations such as the Back 40 Mine!

 

 

References:

  1. Impermeable basal structure – with synthetic liners
    Latest update: 03.11.2015
    Mine Closure: Wastes and waste facilities
    Anna Tornivaara, Geological Survey of Finland, P.O. Box 1237, FI-70211 FINLAND:
    Anna Tornivaara of Geological Survey of Finland, Espoo (GTK) with expertise in: Geochemistry, Geology and Hydrogeology 03.11.2015
  2. Flambeau Mine: Water Contamination and Selective “Alternative Facts”
    Robert E. Moran, Ph.D. Michael-Moran Assoc., LLC Water Quality/Hydrogeology/Geochemistry Golden, Colorado, U.S.A. remwater@gmail.com remwater.org

Aquila Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment – Public Comments of Ron Henriksen

Posted on by

Testimony of Ron Henriksen for the Front 40 Environmental Group
DEQ Public Meeting in Stephenson, MI – January 9, 2019

The PERFECT PERMIT APPLICATION was supposedly filed by Aquila Resources with the MDEQ in November of 2015. A number of critical plans were not fully addressed along with inaccurate and inadequate models and test data. Many items were changed over the first year prior to the granting of a permit with many conditions.

Now a full three (3) years later, we find ourselves reviewing yet another version by way of these amendments which simply confirms that the public was correct in stating the original permit was flawed and incomplete. IF Aquila had completed the Feasibility Study PRIOR to submitting the permit application, these SIGNIFICANT amendments may not have been necessary. WHY are these amendments still written with terms such as “will be provided”; “must be obtained”; and “shall be determined”? Are the plans ever final?

How can this project ever be considered complete or be granted an EFFECTIVE status when there are still many unknown factors (yet to be determined)? WHY is there still missing data? Certainly Aquila must have some reasonable excuse that this information is still not being provided?

It would be appropriate to grant an extension for the review time for several reasons:

  1. After 16 years of trying to develop the potential project, there still seems to
    be a number of unresolved issues. The Front 40 along with other concerned
    groups have commissioned to have a technical review of this amendment.
  2. Access to the 904 pages of documents was not user-friendly. The Public
    cannot read or comment on that which they cannot find.
  3. The amendments were filed during the holidays when this material could
    just as easily have been filed in January of 2019 and filed as a complete
    proposal. Now they have added another 55 pages to the EIA; creating more
    review. Are there more items?
  4. Perhaps it would be beneficial to the DEQ and the public for the DEQ to
    rescind the entire permit application; have the applicant re-work and re-file it
    properly formatted – with all the data materials in one complete and organized
    application package.

 

Aquila Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment – Public Comments of Jon Saari

Posted on by

Testimony at DEQ Public Meeting in Stephenson, MI – January 9, 2019

My name is Jon Saari. I am a Board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, and a resident of Marquette. MI. I am opposed to approving the Mining Permit Amendments to the Aquila Back Forty project.

In my testimony for the wetlands permit hearing I focused on the exact arithmetic of impacts to wetlands, both direct and indirect; they totaled 28.39 acres of the 93 acres of wetlands on the mine site. We and our experts did not believe the company’s estimate, and indeed the number has since been revised upward to about 55 acres. We were told that any change in this number would force Aquila to start over. That hasn’t happened.

Instead of “aligning” the mining facilities to minimize the wetlands impact, Aquila and its engineers have introduced us to the concept of “feasibility design.” It seems to argue that if it costs the company more to construct a tailings pond safely or to protect wetlands, they need not do it. Feasibility, meaning money, determines the design.

This latest version of the mine plan greatly expands the mining facilities to the east. Approximately 222 acres have been added to the mine footprint, mainly it seems to increase capacity for tailings and waste rock. Where is the increased rock coming from? The size of the pit is roughly the same, so the company must be hedging its bets about the future of this mine. The life of the mine in this permit is seven years, but on the ground it seems to be anticipating an additional nine years of underground mining.

So the alignment in this new plan is preparing for a longer and deeper future mine. The requirement in the wetlands permit to seek the least damaging alternative to the destruction of 55 acres of wetlands fell by the wayside. As we argued in that hearing, relocating some facilities onto the uplands of the eastern area would have minimized that destruction. But this idea was dismissed; in the language of “feasibility design” it was not feasible due to transportation costs.

The company and its engineers plow ahead with their own logic. The Michigan DEQ has to fit all this complexity into its regulations. The third party in this contest is the public stakeholders — the native ancestors, the landowners, the river protectors, the environmental advocates. May they finally be listened to. 

 

Landowners, Environmentalist Call for Common-Sense Mineral Lease Reforms

Posted on by

MARQUETTE – Michigan landowners and environmental groups are calling for common-sense reforms of mineral leasing and severed mineral rights following a Public Meeting with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Minerals Management. Approximately 120 people attended the December 4th meeting, where growing frustrations were expressed over UPX Minerals’ requested lease of 2,500 acres of state-owned metallic minerals in Marquette County. The controversial UPX leases target “severed minerals” located underneath private surface lands — including private homes, camps and managed forest lands.

“We applaud Mark Sweatman, director of the DNR’s Office of Minerals Management, for responding directly to public questions, in a public forum. Unfortunately, that meeting raised more questions than it answered,” said Kathleen Heideman of the Mining Action Group. “Obviously, Michigan needs to change its management of state-owned metallic minerals. Landowners are getting trampled by the current system, and the widespread leasing of severed minerals threatens Michigan’s natural resources. It’s a Public Trust issue. The DNR’s primary duty is to ensure clean water and healthy ecosystems for all citizens, so environmental impacts need to be assessed before any decision can be made regarding the private, corporate use of public resources,” said Heideman.

UPX is seeking metallic minerals under lands that contain recreational trails, endangered species habitat, sensitive wetlands, and the remote Rocking Chair Lakes Natural Area, home to old-growth forest, two outstanding trout lakes, four Ecological Reference Areas, and one of Michigan’s tallest cliffs. Rocking Chair Lakes is a biological stronghold for “tree species that do not reliably recruit across the ecoregion” according to the DNR, and contains Michigan’s finest example of a “dry mesic northern forest.” The Rocking Chair Lakes provide some of the best habitat in the Great Lakes for “sensitive wildlife requiring large tracts of mature forest, mesic conifer or corridors between such areas.” Habitat fragmentation is a priority wildlife management issue, as the rugged preserve lies in the heart of Michigan’s moose range. The DNR’s own management plan lists mineral extraction as a “threat.”

“These are some of the most iconic landscapes found in the midwest. The Mulligan (Cliff) Wall and Mulligan Plains have no equal in local landscape awe, and cliffs near Echo Lake support peregrine propagation and habitat, just two significant examples of areas potentially affected by exploration and mining activity. Lease reclassification remains a subjective process, leading to possible development of lands and unacceptable habitat loss through fragmentation,” said Chauncey Moran, board chairman of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve.

“Working with impacted landowners and other stakeholders, we’ve identified serious problems with Michigan’s management of minerals and severed mineral rights,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “There is a growing consensus that legislative and process reforms are needed. We’re gathering feedback now, and look forward to pursuing mineral lease reforms in 2019.”

Among the ideas under consideration: that the State of Michigan should create a public database of mineral lease ownership; that all mineral rights ownership should be registered; that cumulative environmental impacts of mineral exploration should be assessed; that mineral owners should pay property tax; and that the DNR should offer surface landowners ‘first right of refusal’ – the option to purchase state-owned ‘severed minerals’ beneath their homes, camps and forests, prior to any lease consideration.

A fair and expedited path to reunify the severed estate would streamline the DNR’s management burdens, return stewardship control to private landowners, and better protect Michigan’s environment.

TAKE ACTION – SEVERED MINERAL RIGHTS
bit.ly/Reform-Mineral-Rights

“There is an overwhelming desire to give small landowners — 98 percent in our unscientific survey — a clear path to unified ownership of their land, both surface and underground,” said Jon Saari, a board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “We can smell, hear, see and know the surface intimately, while the underground is a vast untouchable mass of buried minerals, known only through echoes and wave-lengths and core samples. Small wonder that this historical boon to mining interests known as the ‘dominant estate’ is getting looked at anew, and old assumptions questioned.”

“Currently there is a lot of confusion over mineral rights, and we need transparency. The phrase that catches my attention (in the DNR’s recent Press Release, “Digging into Severed Mineral Rights”) is this: “Determining who owns the minerals beneath your property can be an arduous task, but assistance can be acquired through an attorney or title company… once an owner is established, a mineral appraisal is typically completed to determine its value.” It is not right that determining mineral rights under my property should be an arduous task, requiring assistance from an attorney or title company. Mineral rights under private property should be apparent and spelled out clearly at time of purchase, and Michigan state laws should be changed to facilitate that,” said Brian and Julie Hintsala, local residents impacted by the UPX lease requests.

“The Superior Watershed Partnership is currently updating the Dead River Watershed Management Plan, expanding it to include protection recommendations for the entire watershed. In order to protect our freshwater resources and quality of life, we recommend a prohibition on sulfide-based mining within the Dead River Watershed,” said Carl Lindquist, executive director of the Superior Watershed Partnership.

Chris Burnett, speaking on behalf of the Upper Peninsula Land Conservancy’s Vielmetti-Peters Conservation Reserve in Marquette, was informed during the meeting that UPX had “withdrawn” the land conservancy’s property from their lease request. No explanation was given. Burnett questioned how the DNR communicated with impacted landowners, and whether the lease review process considered the value of renewable natural resources, worth substantially more than leasing fees.

UPX Minerals is a wholly owned subsidiary of Highland Copper, based in Canada. In 2017, UPX acquired nearly 500,000 acres of mineral properties in Michigan’s Central Upper Peninsula – lands formerly owned by Rio Tinto/Kennecott. UPX is reviewing historic mineral exploration data and conducting “field exploration” in search of gold, magmatic nickel-copper and zinc-copper deposits. Their goal is to “define drilling targets” and create a “pipeline” of future mining projects.

Comments opposing the UPX mineral lease requests were jointly submitted to the DNR by the Mining Action Group, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust, Friends of the Land of Keweenaw (FOLK), Freshwater Future, Concerned Citizens of Big Bay, the Michigan Environmental Council, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

Sweatman indicated the lease requests are still under review, and may be decided in early 2019. The public is urged to submit all questions pertaining to the UPX metallic mineral lease requests to the DNR’s Office of Minerals Management, P.O. Box 30452, Lansing MI 48909, or DNR-Minerals@michigan.gov

WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING?

“After listening to Director Sweatman discuss mineral rights and mineral leasing, I asked myself – what are you buying when you purchase real estate in Michigan? When the mineral rights are severed, it appears you have only the surface, maybe the air rights above it. And the right to pay property taxes! You’d be better off buying a magic carpet.”
– Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

“We built our family home on Neejee Road in 1992 primarily because we loved the natural beauty of the wooded lands near the McClure Basin. Other people appreciate the scenic beauty of the region also, because the old steel bridge and the new high bridge on Co. Rd. 510 over the Dead River are two of the most photographed areas in Marquette County. Imagine having a mine in the background of your next bridge photo! It is shocking to consider…. I am a life-long Yooper and I do appreciate the historical and current importance of mining to our area. However, we are much more than mining now. Tourism, mountain biking and cross country skiing in this area would be devastated by possible mining operations. Is it worth forever changing our landscape and risking our environment including the nearby Dead River basin for a short term mining operation? Why would the State of Michigan consider allowing mineral rights to be leased for exploration so near a community, in an area that will impact recreation and tourism?”
– Brian and Julie Hintsala, impacted landowners

“It is in our best interest to protect our watersheds from wide-scale ecological disruption, and look instead toward a future that allows our local economies to thrive because of the natural beauty that attracts people to our area.”
– Maggie Scheffer, board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

“Most of the threatened parcels are part of the Dead River watershed, which flows into Lake Superior just north of the city of Marquette. Contamination of this water would pose a great risk and expense. There are several dams along the river forming basins which have numerous waterfront developments. The value of these parcels would be seriously downgraded if the water is degraded. Property values would suffer, as would property taxes. Exploration is a messy business.”
– Kathy Peters, Marquette

“Rocking Chair Lakes are a hidden treasure in the valley of the Mulligan. The creek starts high up in wetlands near the McCormick Tract, tumbles down for miles through rugged hills onto an enclosed plain, and flows for five miles along the base of a 400-foot high rocky escarpment before emptying into the Dead River. While the beauty of Mulligan Creek was, and still is, apparent, the reality is that surrounding lands in the watershed are dominated by industrial forest owners…. PUBLIC LAND IS SCARCE: the State of Michigan owns 240 acres that encompass most of the Rocking Chair Lakes, a state wilderness area nestled high up within the escarpment itself. Road access is limited. This is no place for sulfide mining.”
– Jon Saari, board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

“Last fall some of us hiked into Rocking Chair Lakes Ecological Reference Area. This place has it all: old-growth cedar stands and hardwood forest, lush, misty valleys of old-growth hemlock nestled between high rock outcrops, and picturesque, undeveloped lakes. It’s hard to think of a worse place for mineral exploration and potentially a mine.”
– Steve Garske, board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

“Foreign mining companies see Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as a great place to operate: loosely regulated, full of metallic mineral deposits – a ‘you-pick’ orchard for sulfide mining companies. The State of Michigan, in its eagerness to permit resource exploration and extraction, risks turning the U.P. into a mining camp, and damaging our clean water and wild lands in the process.”
– Kathleen Heideman, Mining Action Group

“Recent scientific/medical research shows that increasing levels of mercury in the Lake Superior watershed are entering the human food chain by accumulating as poison in our game fish, creating a serious risk to human health, including irreversible brain damage in fetuses and children; and that the cause of this mercury poisoning is the toxic legacy of sulfide ore mining (silver, copper, gold, zinc). Our Michigan DNR now has the opportunity and responsibility as “Gatekeepers” acting as guardians of the public trust, to close the gate on further poisoning of our water and to protect our children and their children’s children by denying the sulfide mineral leases requested by UPX Minerals.”
– Dennis Ferraro, Marquette

“We are looking to our new governor to swiftly act in a manner that promotes our potential $6 billion annual renewable commercial fishery opportunity by restoring legacy mining pollution and casting aside this risky sulfide mining experiment.”
– Jeffery Loman, L’Anse Indian Reservation

LEARN MORE

####

Mission of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

Founded in 1976, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition’s purpose remains unchanged: to protect and maintain the unique environmental qualities of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan by educating the public and acting as a watchdog to industry and government. UPEC is a nonprofit, registered 501(c)(3) organization. For more information, call 906-201-1949, see UPenvironment.org, or contact: upec@upenvironment.org.

Mission of the UPEC Mining Action Group

The UPEC Mining Action Group (MAG), formerly known as Save the Wild U.P., is a grassroots effort to defend the clean water and wild places of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from the dangers of sulfide mining. Contact the Mining Action Group at info@savethewildup.org or call 906-201-1949. Learn more about the Mining Action Group at miningactiongroup.org.

DNR to hold Public Meeting on UPX Mineral Lease Requests

Posted on by

ALERT — At the request of concerned citizens and environmental groups. the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has agreed to hold a Public Meeting on December 4th to discuss controversial mineral leases requested by UPX Minerals, Inc. (UPX).

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources’ Office of Minerals Management will hold an informational public meeting next month in Marquette on a metallic minerals lease request by UPX Minerals Inc., a division of Highland Copper.

The meeting is set for 6-8 p.m. eastern time, Tuesday, Dec. 4 in the Charcoal Room at the University Center on the campus of Northern Michigan University in Marquette.

“We will give a brief overview of the metallic mineral lease request submitted by UPX Minerals, Inc.,” said Julie Manson, manager of the Lease Management Unit of the DNR’s Office of Minerals Management. “We will also be providing attendees with an opportunity to ask questions, and we will answer them as time allows.”

UPX Minerals Inc. initially submitted a lease request to the DNR for state-owned metallic mineral rights on 6,655.69 acres in Iron and Marquette counties. UPX has since withdrawn over 4,000 acres from its application and is now requesting to lease 2,500.80 acres of the originally requested acres.

All the acreage initially nominated for leasing in Iron County has been withdrawn from the request by UPX.

Should this request be approved by DNR, issuance of a lease to UPX would give them the exclusive right to explore for the presence of metallic minerals in these areas. A lease alone does not grant a lessee a right to mine.

The recommended lease classification is development with restriction, which means there are other specific restrictions in the lease in addition to the standard lease provisions. The lease would allow surface use for metallic minerals exploration or development after all necessary permissions have been obtained.

Concerned citizens, including impacted homeowners in the Marquette area who submitted public comments opposing the proposed leasing of minerals under their homes, camps, and forests, were NOT notified of the hearing – they learned about the decision only after the DNR issued a press release dated November 4th.

“The DNR’s failure to directly contact concerned landowners and other environmental stakeholders reflects poorly on the Minerals office,” said Kathleen Heideman of the UPEC Mining Action Group. “When folks take the time to educate themselves about a complex issue, write informed comments, and submit them in a timely manner to the State of Michigan, I really feel they should be treated with more respect.”

UPX is seeking to lease thousands of acres of State-owned minerals in Marquette County. These mineral properties are underneath private property, homes, camps, rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands – even nature reserves and the DNR’s own Rocking Chair Lakes, located 25 miles northwest of Marquette. The Rocking Chair Lakes are considered one of the “jewels of the state forest system… a natural area in a rugged and nearly inaccessible part of Marquette County. Managed for trout, these lakes offer a wilderness fishing experience.”

Comments opposing the UPX mineral lease requests were jointly submitted to the DNR by UPEC’s Mining Action Group, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, the Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust, Friends of the Land of Keweenaw (FOLK), Freshwater Future, Concerned Citizens of Big Bay, the Michigan Environmental Council, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

“We urge everyone to attend the DNR’s public meeting on December 4th. This is the public’s chance to ask questions and get answers,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC).

CONCERNED CITIZENS MEETING

Landowners who are impacted by the UPX mineral lease requests may contact miningactiongroupUPEC@gmail.com for additional information.

UPDATED MAPS

Are you impacted by UPX Mineral’s plans for mineral exploration in Marquette County? Check these detail maps showing the UPX mineral lease requests:

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

Download this file (PDF)

LEARN MORE

Why Has Aquila’s Stock Price Plummeted?

Posted on by

By Mark Doremus

Aquila Resources’ stock price has dropped to a 52-week low, despite the fact that state regulators have green-lighted its Back Forty mine west of Stephenson, Michigan.

 The stock price has declined 57 percent, to 12 cents a share, since June 4, 2018, when Aquila received its fourth and final state permit for the project.
What’s going on?
The first place to look for an answer is the price of gold and zinc, experts say. Those two minerals make up 82 percent of the Back Forty’s anticipated metals production.
The price of gold is down 10 percent from its 52-week high. So, gold mining companies aren’t feeling an urgent need to seek new supplies, said investment analyst Dave Forest of Pierce Points (piercepoints.com).
Meanwhile, zinc is down 29 percent from its 52-week high.
The zinc price decline is driven by concerns about a tariff-driven trade war, and a general cooling off of the Chinese economy, which drives much of the market for global minerals, according to Forest and Prof. Gary Campbell, a mining economist with Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich. 
There is also a general lack of interest in the mining industry among investors, Forest said.
“Financing of mining projects is not a hot area right now,” Forest said. “There are not as many deals being done as there were five or six years ago.”
Aquila says it needs at least $263 million to open the Back Forty, on top of the $90 million it has already spent on planning and permitting. It is looking for a partner with deep pockets to capitalize the open-pit mine and mill.
So far, no one has committed big money to get the project into the construction phase.  
The lack of an immediate development deal isn’t fatal for the Back Forty project, Forest said. However, it may have disappointed investors who were hoping the project would move forward as soon as the final permit was issued, and that in turn may have affected the stock price.
Finally, investors may be reacting to the many roadblocks that face the Back Forty project, even though all the permits for the mine have now been issued.
Two administrative challenges to the project have been grinding through the hearings process for almost two years. Both target Aquila’s Back Forty mining permit. Final arguments for those contested cases are being drafted now, and administrative law judge Daniel Pulter could issue a decision before the end of the year.
As those proceedings wind down, however, three additional contested case petitions have been filed on Aquila’s recently-issued wetland permit.  The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin has also challenged the wetland permit in federal court.
And, despite the company’s claims, its permit applications aren’t completely done yet. The site plan in the mining permit must be amended so it matches the layout in the wetland permit. And the wetland permit came with 28 pages of conditions that must be met before the Back Forty gets a final go-ahead from state regulators.
There’s more. Aquila wants to cut a county road that passes through the mine site, but it hasn’t submitted a proposal yet. And Lake Township, where the Back Forty would be located, has implemented zoning-related ordinances that must be addressed at some point, either by negotiations or in a court battle.
These unresolved issues create uncertainty about the prospects for the Back Forty mine. That may be driving investors away from Aquila Resources toward other, more promising investment opportunities.

Aquila Resources did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this report, and has not issued any public statement about its declining stock price.

Aquila Opinion Letter Misleads in Many Ways

Posted on by

A response by Mark Doremus

The letter from Aquila Resources’ Chantae Lessard that was published in the Oct. 12 edition of the Eagle Herald leaves out or distorts key facts to argue that Lake Township officials have enacted “illegal” ordinances to “prevent the project from moving forward.” Here’s the text of Lessard’s letter (click to view full size):

Let’s correct the record.
 
Ms. Lessard begins her letter by selectively quoting Part 632, Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), presumably to support her claim that Lake Township’s mining regulations are unlawful. While it is true that the statute puts limits on local regulation of mines like the Back Forty, it also expressly allows regulations that do not “duplicate, contradict, or conflict” with the statute (MI Comp L § 324.63203(4)).
 
Furthermore – and this is key – Lake Township does not rely exclusively on Part 632 for its power to regulate mining activities. It also relies on its zoning authority and on its overarching duty to protect the public under the laws of the State of Michigan. This is all documented in the Lake Township Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 14, Special Land Uses, in the township’s Mineral Extraction Ordinance, and in two reports I’ve published on Facebook (“Lake Township Amending Zoning Regulations/Special Land Use” and “Lake Township Clarifies Authority Over Mining Operations,” www.facebook.com/back40film).
 
Ms. Lessard goes on to complain that Lake Township has enacted a resolution that prevents officials from communicating with Aquila Resources. What the resolution actually says is that business with the township shall be conducted in public, on the record and with a quorum of township officials in attendance, not in private meetings between an outside entity and individual town officials (Lake Township Resolution No. 071217A). In other words, in Lake Township the public’s business is to be conducted in public, not in secret, back-room conversations. 
 
Ms. Lessard also states that Lake Township “has turned us away when we have tried to work collaboratively with them to address their concerns” about the Back Forty project. In truth, under the town’s zoning ordinance, if Aquila submits a letter of request, and puts money in escrow to cover the township’s costs, the zoning staff will meet with Aquila and explain, on the record and in detail, what the township is looking for from the company. So far Aquila has chosen not to engage with Lake Township in these first steps toward an official review of its proposed mining project.
 
Finally, in her letter, Ms. Lessard attacks Lake Township officials for “actively opposing” the mine, “making up their own rules based on personal opinion” and violating their “moral obligation” to work with the company in good faith. In fact, the town board has not taken a position on the mine, pro or con. Instead, it has passed laws to protect the township from the potential negative impacts of a huge industrial project. That’s what elected public officials are “morally obligated” to do – regardless of what their personal opinions may be.

Environmentalists to DNR: Protect the Rocking Chair Lakes!

Posted on by

Major environmental groups have joined forces with the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC), calling on the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to protect Rocking Chair Lakes Natural Area.

Comments opposing the UPX mineral lease requests were jointly submitted to the DNR by UPEC’s Mining Action Group, the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, the Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust, Friends of the Land of Keweenaw (FOLK), Freshwater Future, Concerned Citizens of Big Bay, the Michigan Environmental Council, and the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

UPX Minerals, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian mining company Highland Copper, is seeking to lease more than 3,800 acres of State-owned minerals in Iron and Marquette Counties. Most of these mineral properties are in Marquette County, and many are underneath private property, homes, camps, rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands – even nature reserves and the DNR’s own Rocking Chair Lakes, located 25 miles northwest of Marquette.

The DNR’s Forestry Division calls the Rocking Chair Lakes one of the “jewels of the state forest system… a natural area in a rugged and nearly inaccessible part of Marquette County. Managed for trout, these lakes offer a wilderness fishing experience.” 

The Mining Action Group has released the following statement:

“The special qualities of Rocking Chair Lakes Natural Area demand that it be protected in its natural state. Mineral exploration is obviously not a compatible land use. Rocking Chair Lakes is listed on the Michigan DNR website under Natural Areas. If the DNR cannot deny a mineral lease request in this unique and highly significant area, then it seems it cannot deny a lease anywhere. In that case, what do we have a DNR for?

As a Natural Area, any form of mineral exploration is prohibited by Michigan law: “Natural Area status as provided under Public Act 451 of 1994 Part 351 WILDERNESS AND NATURAL AREAS: Sec. 35105. prohibits the following activities: (…) Exploration or extraction of minerals.”

We remind the DNR of their statutory prohibition regarding “Exploration or extraction of minerals” which must be applied in this case:  Any area which has been “proposed for dedication” is protected under the act, and must be managed as a natural/wild/wilderness area until the dedication is final.”

“These mineral lease requests appear to be oblivious to the community’s concerns. UPX doesn’t care about surface ownership, environmental management goals, the potential for environmental damage, legal or regulatory restrictions, or proximity to wetlands and water,” said Kathleen Heideman of the Mining Action Group. “To be clear, we believe that ANY mineral development activity in this remote, fragile place threatens the DNR’s stewardship of the Rocking Chair Lakes area.”

In their joint comments, Michigan environmental groups criticized the DNR’s overly-permissive lease classifications, requested on-the-ground reviews for lands of special environmental concern, and called on the DNR to hold a public meeting in the Upper Peninsula prior to making any final lease decision:

“The agency needs to meet with concerned landowners to discuss the UPX request, and answer questions directly, engaging and educating the public on the work of the minerals management division. The DNR appears to be rushing from nomination to public comment and then straight to ‘decision’ – bypassing the opportunity for a Public Meeting.”

Four different Ecological Reference Areas have been established in the Rocking Chair Lakes Natural Area, representing natural areas of “High Conservation Quality” including cliffs, wetlands, old growth forest, numerous threatened and endangered plants and one of Michigan’s largest inland cliffs, the Mulligan Cliffs.

Read their full comments, here.

LEARN MORE