Category Archives: Alerts

Important topics to alert the community.

Sulfide Mine Permit Denied: “A Win for Wetlands”!

Posted on by

MARQUETTE, MI – Regional environmental groups are celebrating the news that a disputed Wetlands Permit for Aquila Resources’ Back Forty sulfide mine has been denied by a Michigan Administrative Law Judge, concluding a two year review of the contested case. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy) sparked controversy when it approved Aquila’s Wetlands Permit in 2018, over the objections of regulatory staff who were prepared to deny the permit.

The permit was contested by multiple petitioners, including an adjacent landowner, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, represented by Earthjustice attorneys, and the grassroots Coalition to SAVE the Menominee River. According to Earthjustice attorney Janette Brimmer, Aquila “refused to provide all of the information the state needed to determine the full environmental impacts the mine will have on the Menominee River and the surrounding area.”

AQUILA BACK FORTY PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The Back Forty project proposes to excavate an enormous 84 acre open-pit mine, 800 foot deep, on the banks of the Menominee River, 150 feet from the water. The mine site would be approximately 1100 acres in size, of which 280-300 acres is public land, part of the Escanaba State Forest. Most of the mine site would be covered by waste rock, ore storage, milling facilities and tailings storage. Nearly all of the Back Forty rock is reactive – capable of producing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) when exposed to air and water. AMD pollution devastates watersheds and lasts hundreds of years. Tailings and waste rock will be stored on-site during mining; tailings waste will remain on the surface forever. During closure, the open pit mine will be backfilled with waste material. Once this takes place, groundwater contaminated with AMD is predicted to seep into the river. Environmental groups claim that the Back Forty’s environmental impacts could be significantly reduced by using feasible, common-sense alternatives.

Local wetlands data (State of Michigan Wetlands Map Viewer, 2021) combined with Back Forty site diagram (Aquila Resources, 2018). Direct and indirect wetland impacts extend beyond the project boundary to adjacent wetland complexes, and the Menominee River.

BACK FORTY WETLANDS PERMIT DISPUTE

The permit would have allowed Aquila Resources to destroy  wetlands of the Menominee River watershed in order to construct and operate an open-pit sulfide mine, waste storage dam, and mill. Wetland impacts included direct and indirect losses due to excavation, placing of fill, or building parts of the facility on top of wetlands, removing groundwater, permanently changing hydrology, impairing wetland ecosystems, and contaminating the surrounding watershed with toxic dust from mining operations, and acid-mine drainage.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Judge Pulter’s decision makes it clear that Aquila Resources’ application was not simply flawed, but incompetent:

“In many cases addressing feasible and prudent alternatives, the applicant’s initial site plan has the most impact to the resource. During the processing of the application, it is common for the applicant to reduce the amount of wetland impacts sought in its original site plan. (…) In this case, however, the amount of wetland impacts increased with each modification of Aquila’s site plan. Aquila did not proffer evidence of how it had re-designed its site plans with a view toward reducing wetland impacts. (…) Because it considered three site plans, each of which increased in wetland impacts, the record does not contain evidence of feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods. Therefore, I find, as a Matter of Fact, that Aquila failed to demonstrate that there are no feasible and prudent alternative locations or methods.”

Wetlands are strictly protected under state and federal law. Before wetlands can be destroyed, Aquila must demonstrate that the impacts are unavoidable. The applicant failed that test, and so Judge Pulter concluded that Aquila’s Wetland Permit must be denied:

  • “Aquila failed to demonstrate that there are no feasible and prudent alternative locations and methods because it did not proffer evidence of how it had re-designed its site plans with a view toward reducing wetland impacts.” 
  • “The proposed project will have a probable negative effect on historic, cultural, scenic, and ecological values.” 
  • “The proposed project is not in the public interest.”
  • “Aquila failed to demonstrate that the disruption to the aquatic resources caused by proposed activity will be acceptable.” 
  • “The proposed activity is not wetland dependent.” 
  • “Aquila failed to demonstrate that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist.” 
  • “Therefore, Aquila is not entitled to a permit in this case.”

MEDIA STATEMENTS

Dale Burie, president of the Coalition to SAVE the Menominee River:

According to Davis & Kuelthau attorney Ted A. Warpinski, who represented the Coalition, “Judge Pulter issued a thorough and thoughtful decision recognizing the many flaws with Aquila’s wetlands permit application and rejecting the attempt by EGLE to correct those flaws with improper permit conditions. We are grateful for the cooperative efforts of the Earthjustice attorneys representing the Menominee Tribe as well as the diligent efforts of Mr. Boerner who joined us in challenging this wetland permit.”  We encourage Aquila to accept that this is simply not a suitable location for a mining operation.

Al Gedicks, executive secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council:

Judge Pulter’s careful consideration of the scientific testimony in the contested wetlands case reveals a consistent pattern of Aquila’s manipulation of scientific research to conceal significant negative impacts to wetlands from the proposed Back Forty mine. Ms. Kristi Wilson, an environmental quality specialist  from EGLE’s Water Resources Division (WRD) testified that Aquila failed to provide information requested by the WRD regarding dewatering of the open pit and its effects on wetlands within the project area. Without this information the WRD could not evaluate the impact to wetlands. Mr. Eric Chatterson, a geology specialist from the WRD, testified that Aquila “predetermined what was going to happen and it just manipulated the mathematics to make that happen.” The end result was a fraudulent application that prevented the public from recognizing the full extent of the harm to wetlands from this project. Aquila’s conduct in this case is ethically reprehensible.

Guy Reiter, executive director of Menikanaehkem:

Menikanaehkem applauds Judge Pulter’s decision, in denying this wetland permit. Menikanaehkem has always been a strong defender of our beautiful Menominee river and our vast Menominee cultural resources located around the river.

Ron Henriksen, spokesperson for the Front 40 Environmental Fight:

We are so appreciative of the hard work by individuals, tribes, and environmental organizations which helped the judge reach this important decision.  Front 40 Environmental Fight was founded in 2003 to help defend the Menominee River and Shakey Lakes from the hazards of sulfide mining; for the past 17 years, we have informed the public about the dangers of sulfide mining through education and outreach — and the community responded overwhelmingly, rejecting Aquila’s dangerous Back Forty mine! We thank everyone who is working to protect our wetlands, and the Menominee River.

Kathleen Heideman, member of the Mining Action Group:

This decision is a thoughtful, clear-eyed rebuke of Aquila Resources. Aquila’s approach to permiting the Back Forty project has been hasty and incompetent, and reveals a disregard for Michigan’s natural resources. The decision demonstrates that the Wetland Permit was subject to denial for dozens of reasons — critical data was never provided to regulators, hydrological modeling was unsupported, and statutory requirements were not met. Most critically, Aquila failed to undertake any meaningful review of the feasible alternatives, in order to minimize the impacts to wetlands, or avoid wetlands altogether.

Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition:

This is great news for the people of Wisconsin and Michigan. Aquila’s inability to submit a permit without major deficiencies reinforces our concern that this company is unable to meet the minimum standards for developing a safe mining operation. It’s a shame people must waste their time for years fighting to keep the State of Michigan from approving a mine that threatens one of the Great Lake’s best sports fishing habitats, even as Michigan and Wisconsin nonprofits and environmental agencies work jointly to restore sturgeon habitat in the Menominee River. I congratulate the Administrative Law Judge on this wise environmental ruling.

Carl Lindquist, executive director of the Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Conservancy

We applaud the decision to deny this permit. We’ve worked with eight Native American tribes and other stakeholders to list the Menominee among American Rivers’ Top Ten Most Endangered Rivers in the United States. We are convinced that Aquila’s open pit mine is too risky. In addition to exposing sulfide based ore, the mining process would use cyanide and other toxins, a stone’s throw from one of the largest tributaries to Lake Michigan. The risks to wetlands, groundwater, surface water, the Great Lakes and the cultural legacy of the Menominee Indian Tribe are simply too great.

SUPPORT

Independent review of the Aquila Back Forty Wetland permit was made possible by the generous support of groups and individuals concerned about the future health of the Menominee River. Working collaboratively, the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition and the Front 40 secured grants and donations from Freshwater Future, Superior Watershed Partnership, the Western Mining Action Network, DuPage Rivers Fly Tyers (DRiFT), Northern Illinois Fly Tyers (NIFT), Badger Fly Fishers, M&M Great Lakes Sport Fisherman, Wisconsin Smallmouth Alliance, Fly Fishers International, Great Lakes Council of Fly Fishers International, the Emerick Family Fund, and from many individual fishing enthusiasts throughout the Great Lakes area.

KEY LINKS

JOIN THE CONVERSATION!

Join UPEC’s upcoming Livestream Event “A WIN FOR WETLANDS” to learn more about this important environmental legal decision. “A WIN FOR WETLANDS” will offer a panel discussion featuring Al Gedicks of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, Dale Burie of the Coalition to Save the Menominee, Guy Reiter of Menikanaehkem, and Kathleen Heideman of the Mining Action Group. The event will take place on Thursday, January 14, 2020, at 7 pm EST, livestreamed via Facebook and Zoom. Connect using these links:

Join Facebook Livetream
https://www.facebook.com/Upper-Peninsula-Environmental-Coalition-195291337192049/live_videos

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83113438020?pwd=d3pZcjNyYW9uVmZUTy9vc2ZIN0UwUT09

Meeting ID: 831 1343 8020
Passcode: 2021
One tap mobile
+12532158782,,83113438020#,,,,*2021# US (Tacoma)
+13017158592,,83113438020#,,,,*2021# US (Washington D.C)

# # #

Coalition to SAVE the Menominee
President Dale Burie, (615) 512-3506
The Coalition’s mission is to protect the water quality of the Menominee River for generations to come and ensure clean water for the two municipalities that draw their water supply from the mouth of the Menominee River. jointherivercoalition.org

Front 40 Environmental Group
Spokesperson Ron Henriksen, frontforty2016@aol.com
The Front 40 grassroots organization formed in response to the threat of a metallic mineral mine on the Menominee River. Since 2003, their primary objective has been to ensure that metallic sulfide mining operations are not allowed to adversely impact our rivers, lakes, groundwater and lands. menomineeriver.com

Menīkānaehkem 
Guy Reiter, (715) 853-2776
Menīkānaehkem is a grassroots community organization based on the Menominee Reservation in Northeast Wisconsin working to revitalize our communities.

Mining Action Group 
Kathleen Heideman, info@savethewildup.org
The Mining Action Group, formerly Save the Wild UP, was founded in 2004 to defend the clean water and wild places of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from the dangers of sulfide mining.

Superior Watershed Partnership
Executive Director Carl Lindquist, (906) 228-6095
The Superior Watershed Partnership is an award winning Great Lakes nonprofit organization that has set records for pollution prevention and implements innovative, science-based programs that achieves documented, measurable results. SWP is a leader in watershed protection for the Lake Superior Basin and the headwaters region of the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition
UPEC Coordinator Dave Harmon, upec@upenvironment.org
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. UPenvironment.org

Wisconsin Resources Protection Council
Executive Secretary Al Gedicks, (608) 784-4399
The Wisconsin Resources Protection Council was founded in 1982 to help counter the lack of information about the effects of large-scale metallic sulfide mining on our state’s precious water supplies, on the tourism and dairy industries, and upon the many Native American communities that are located near potential mine sites.

 

 

 

 

Is “Michigan’s Mining Future” a Shared Vision?

Posted on by

MARQUETTE – Environmental groups working to protect Upper Michigan’s natural resources from the environmental hazards of metallic mining are questioning the intent of the “Michigan’s Mining Future” legislation, introduced by State Rep. Sara Cambensy (D-Marquette).

House Bill 4227 would create a governor-appointed “Committee on Michigan’s Mining Future.”

The purpose of the advisory-only committee would be to develop “legislative and policy recommendations” to “enhance the growth of the mining, minerals and aggregate industry” and “strengthen and develop a sustainable mining industry in Michigan.”

“House Bill 4227, in its focus on economic development, ignores the scope of environmental problems caused by mining. Environmental groups may be invited to the table, but the make-up of this committee suggests the outcome – more mining – is almost inevitable. Meanwhile, we are still spending hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up after historic mining booms: polluted lakes and streams, abandoned mines, mercury in wetlands, tailings that threaten Lake Superior fisheries, and more. We advise U.P. residents to keep all options open, rather than going head-long into more disastrous mining cycles,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

“We applaud Rep. Cambensy’s effort, but raise cautionary questions about the balance of representation on the committee. A larger vision of wise environmental stewardship is required, and the understanding that we must live within ‘sustainable’ limits in order protect our natural resources,” said Jon Magnuson of the Interfaith Northern Great Lakes Water Stewards.

“This legislation in its current state does not provide a good framework to protect Michigan’s precious natural resources when considering future mining projects,” said Michigan Environmental Council Deputy Policy Director Sean Hammond. “Although this bill does provide a platform for a needed discussion on the future of mining, especially with continued questions on the implementation of our mining statutes, the way in which it is currently written too heavily favors growing mining, with no mention of natural resource protection. Therefore, we cannot support this bill.”

“I welcome the news that the State may be ready to take a clear-eyed look at mining in the Upper Peninsula. As the district most impacted by metallic mining, we must understand mistakes of the past and address current regulatory challenges, in order to ensure a ‘sustainable’ environment going forward. This bill suggests a foregone conclusion: that mining is central to Michigan’s future. Is that true? I am not convinced that we have a shared vision of Michigan’s future,” said Kathleen Heideman of the Mining Action Group.

“The long-term impacts to the human environment from mining are at least as, if not more important than expanding mining operations in Michigan. But the proposed Committee —  three representatives of the mining industry, a union representative, and two faculty members specializing in geology or mining, versus only two representatives of environmental groups — would relegate those speaking for the environment to token representation, stacking the deck six to two, plus one position for a recognized Native American representative. We suggest that the committee be expanded to include two faculty members with specialties in ecology, water quality, wildlife biology, or a related field, and four, rather than two, representatives of environmental organizations. Only with such a committee makeup will there be a fair balance of interests,” said Jeffrey Towner, board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

Environmental groups in the U.P. say they were not involved in crafting House Bill 4227.

“In the past 175 years, Michigan’s environment has suffered greatly in the pursuit of mining profits. And in the past ten years, we’ve had enough of the “economy over environment” paradigm, with environmental agencies doing as much to facilitate the exploitation of our public trust resources as they do to protect them,” said Jon Saari, board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “We look forward to meeting with Representative Cambensy to share our vision of Michigan’s future.”

For more info on House Bill 4227, see http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2019-HB-4227

####

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.

 

New ​Report Finds Fault with Sulfide Mine’s Plans

Posted on by

MARQUETTE, MI — A new technical report from the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2) identifies serious faults with Aquila Resources’ Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment application, now under review by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

The technical review of the Back Forty permit was conducted by Dr. Kendra Zamzow, an environmental geochemist, and Dr. David Chambers, an internationally-known expert on tailings dam safety. CSP2 analyzes mining applications in order to “provide objective research and technical advice to people impacted by mining.”

The Back Forty project proposes to excavate an 800 foot deep open-pit sulfide mine on the banks of the Menominee River, 100 feet from the water. Milling will also take place on-site, using cyanide leaching, mercury recovery, and flotation. Aquila claims to be “minimizing impacts” but the footprint of the facility has ballooned to 440 hectares (1087 acres), largely due to a larger tailings management facility. Most of the mine site would be covered by waste rock, ore storage, milling facilities and tailings storage. Environmental groups claim that the Back Forty’s environmental impacts could be significantly reduced by using feasible, common-sense alternatives — but Aquila has rejected these options.

Nearly all of the Back Forty rock is reactive – capable of producing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) when exposed to air and water. AMD pollution devastates watersheds and lasts hundreds of years. Tailings and waste rock will be stored on-site during mining, and the tailings will remain on the surface forever. Aquila has told their investors they will pursue underground mining as a “second phase” of operations, but this is not acknowledged in any permit. Underground mining could extend the mine’s life from 7 years to 16 years, greatly magnifying the risks. During closure, the open pit will be backfilled with waste and tailings. Once this takes place, groundwater contaminated with AMD is predicted to seep into the river.

CSP2’s technical report evaluated the Back Forty mining permit, including updated environmental impacts, feasible alternative designs, financial assurances, and Aquila’s proposed use of an “upstream” tailings design, the same risky construction method that has resulted in catastrophic tailings dam failures around the world.

Key Findings of CSP2’s Technical Report

  • The Tailings Management Facility (TMF) is to be constructed using the upstream dam construction method, which is the least safe design. It also applies an underestimated seismic event to the construction design.
  • There are no details for the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
  • There is no information on how mercury from the retort will be stored or transported, or whether there is a facility to receive it.
  • Mercury emissions from the retort did not go into air deposition modeling.
  • Air deposition modeling suggests that Spring Lake currently meets mercury water quality standards, but will exceed (violate) them after mining begins. By using old data, Aquila Resources may be biasing the baseline high, underestimating the impact of emissions.
  • There are significant unexplained inconsistencies with the volume of chemical reagents, and the storage capacity for lime.
  • Recent data suggests upper groundwater layers flow faster than the data used in the groundwater model. The groundwater model was not updated, and may underestimate the volume of dewatering and impacts to wetlands.
  • Biological monitoring should include mussels, but currently that is not scheduled.
  • There are no plans to monitor surface water for metal concentrations, although sediment and mine discharge will be monitored for metals. Surface water metal analysis should be added.
  • Financial assurance is underestimated.

“This report only underscores the fact that the original Mining Permit should not have been granted,” said Ron Henriksen, spokesperson for the Front 40, which helped secure the review. “Aquila continues to provide inadequate applications with missing information. The DEQ should rescind this entire permit, have the applicant revise their mistakes, and refile it, properly formatted, with all material in one complete, organized application package.”

“These flawed permits and their environmental impacts are deeply interconnected. We urge the State of Michigan to hold a consolidated hearing on the Mine Permit Amendment, the Air Permit application, and the Dam Safety Permit application – an option allowed under Part 632 in cases where an applicant applies for multiple permits,” said Kathleen Heideman, a member of the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Group (UPEC).

“We need a thoughtful, consolidated hearing to discuss these permits,” said Heideman. “Nothing less than the future of the Menominee River is at stake.”

“The mine permitting process generates thousands of pages of data and arguments and choices. What is a grassroots environmental organization to make of it? Our logical minds can see where the loose ends are dangling. By hiring mining experts ourselves, we can identify those loose ends as areas of serious concern about this mining permit.  We can enter the discussion that would otherwise be dominated by agency staff, lawyers, and mining company engineers. Expert commentary gives us a louder and more credible voice,” said Jon Saari, a board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

“CSP2’s expert review of Aquila Resources’ latest Back Forty mining permit application has exposed serious flaws in their mining layout and operational design. This includes their insistence on using the risky upstream dam construction for their tailings facility,” said Steve Garske, a member of the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “If constructed as planned, this mine will literally be an accident waiting to happen.”

Technical review of the Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment was made possible by a collaborative effort of the Mining Action Group, the Front 40 Environmental Fight, the Coalition to Save the Menominee River, a 2019 grant from Freshwater Future’s Great Lakes Network, and a 2019 emergency mini-grant from the Western Mining Action Network.

Public Participation

The deadline for submitting written comments on the Aquila Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment permit has been extended until February 15, 2019 at 5pm (EST). Mail comments to Back Forty Mining Permit Amendment, MDEQ-OGMD, 1504 West Washington Street, Marquette, MI 49855, or email comments to DEQ-Mining-Comments@michigan.gov with “Back Forty Mining Permit Amendment” as the subject.

Learn More

 

CSP2 disputes claims in letter about Back Forty mine

Posted on by

Wednesday, January 30, 2019  – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

I recently received a copy of an editorial published in the EagleHerald, “Communications director says release was ‘misleading’,” by Nathan Conrad, communications director for the Natural Resource Development Association.

I am the president of the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2). I have agreed to review the application to construct a tailings dam at the proposed Back Forty mine, but as yet have not received the technical documents I need to perform this review. Nonetheless, Mr. Conrad decided to criticize CSP2 before I have done my analysis.

He said in the letter to the editor: “CSP2 is the same anti-mining group that reviewed a wetland permit last year for opponents of the Back Forty mine. Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.”

This is attacking the messenger, not the message. It is a logic of innuendo, and a smear tactic. The only factual information in this statement is that a report was done — not that the report was either objective or biased, or right or wrong, and why.

Mr. Conrad goes on to assert: “In 2015, it was made known CSP2 colluded with an “anti-mine coalition” and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to derail the Pebble Mine project in Alaska.”

This is not only false, but unless Mr. Conrad has factual evidence to substantiate this claim, which he doesn’t, it is a libelous statement.

CSP2 provides an objective analysis of the data — data that is typically paid for by, and collected by the mining industry. CSP2’s analysis and critiques are not based on who collected or paid for the data, it is an analysis of the data itself. If there is to be a criticism of our reports, then critique the report, not the reporter.

If, however, Conrad wants to insist that it is political agenda, or who one works for that counts, then who should be trusted, a scientist working for a nonprofit helping citizen groups, or a scientist employed with a for-profit company, paid by the mining industry?

David M. Chambers
Center for Science in Public Participation, Bozeman, Mont.

Writer disputes points, talks about permits

Posted on by

Tuesday, January 29, 2019 – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

In his recent letter to the EagleHerald (posted below), Nathan Conrad paints concerned citizens as “known anti-mining” “opponents” who are trying to “obstruct and mislead.” In fact, we’re local residents concerned about the Back Forty sulfide mine, which will destroy clean water and other natural resources. Unlike Conrad’s Natural Resource Development Association, we’re 100 percent volunteer — no paid staff, no lobbyists. We hired well-respected experts at The Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2) to assist with the complex technical review of the proposed Back Forty mine permit.

Conrad’s letter made false statements, including:

  • “According to The Center for Science in Public Participation own website, since 2007, the organization has been providing technical support to a loose coalition of groups opposed to the proposed mine.” False. This refers to the Pebble Mine, not the Back Forty.
  •  “Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.” False.
  •  (Aquila) “received all state and federal permissions required for the construction and commencement of operations at the Back Forty Project.” False. Aquila’s permits are replete with unmet special conditions — incomplete or missing environmental studies, infrastructure designs, financial assurances, etc. No construction or operations can take place until all conditions are satisfied.

When Conrad said the mine received “four final permits” he meant:

  • Mining permit — defunct, in litigation
  • Air pollution permit — defunct, being modified
  • Wetland permit — wetland destruction, in litigation
  • NPDES permit — pollutant discharge to the Menominee River

Aquila rushed headlong in pursuit of these permits, desperate to meet investor deadlines to get more funding. But haste makes waste, as the saying goes. Aquila’s permits were shoddy and must be amended. A fifth permit is under review for the tailings dam, one of the mine’s riskiest features.

Mining and milling will obliterate this scenic area. The true riches of the place aren’t found underground, but in the flowing river, sturgeon, mussels, native plants, ancient garden beds, and the burial mounds belonging to ancestors of the Menominee people.

Lowered water quality. Lost wetlands. The industrialization of yet another wild place. These are the Back Forty’s permitted environmental impacts.

Aquila’s “commitment to clean mining” is totally meaningless. Millions of tons of reactive waste tailings raise the permanent threat of groundwater contamination or catastrophic dam failure. Contaminated waters from the pit will seep into the river. Air pollution — mercury, lead and other metals — will settle nearby and accumulate in lakes. This is how clean water is lost: Permit by permit, to a thousand cuts.

Did Conrad read the permits? “Clean mining” claims do not change the devastating facts of the Back Forty project. We look forward to CSP2’s technical review.

Kathleen Heideman
Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Houghton, Mich.

Responding to:

Communications director (**) says release was ‘misleading’

Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:00 AM  Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

A press release distributed by a known anti-mining group published in the EagleHerald Extra (“Environmental groups to fund technical review of permit amendments for Back Forty Mine,” Jan. 17, 2019) was grossly misleading and provides a disservice to your readers.

According to The Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2)’s own website, since 2007, the organization has been “providing technical support to a loose coalition of groups opposed to the proposed mine.”

CSP2 is the same anti-mining group that reviewed a wetland permit last year for opponents of the Back Forty mine. Furthermore, the same local environmental groups opposed to mining previously hired CSP2 to review Eagle Mine’s permits.

In 2015, it was made known CSP2 colluded with an “anti-mine coalition” and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to derail the Pebble Mine project in Alaska.

CSP2 may claim it is independent from Mining Action Group, Front 40, and UPEC but the group is far from impartial. For the press release to suggest its “independent” is dubious at best. In fact, the press release clearly shows it has reached its conclusion before the “independent” review is conducted.

The fact of the matter is — despite anti-mining groups’ attempts to obstruct and mislead — Aquila Resources has been granted four of four final permits by Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Because of Aquila’s commitment to clean mining, it has received all state and federal permissions required for the construction and commencement of operations at the Back Forty Project.

Nathan Conrad

Communications Director for the Natural Resource Development Association

**  In his letter to the editor of the Eagle Herald, Mr. Conrad identified himself as the “Communication Director for the Natural Resource Development Association” but failed to disclose that he is a registered lobbyist for AQUILLA RESOURCES, one of the “leading members” of the Natural Resource Development Association. Talk about misleading!

More Red Flags for Aquila: Enviro Groups Fund NEW Technical Review of Back Forty Sulfide Mine

Posted on by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — JOINT PRESS STATEMENT

 

STEPHENSON, MI — The Front 40 Environmental Group and the Mining Action Group (MAG) of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC) have secured a new independent technical review of the Aquila Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment application, to be completed by the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2). CSP2 analyzes mining applications in order to provide objective research and technical advice to people impacted by mining. Dr. Kendra Zamzow and Dr. David Chambers are conducting the review.

The Back Forty project proposes to excavate an 800’ deep open-pit sulfide mine on the banks of the Menominee River, 100’ from the water. Milling will take place on-site, using cyanide leaching and flotation. Most of the mine site will be covered by waste rock, ore storage areas, milling facilities and tailings storage. Aquila claims to be “minimizing impacts” but the footprint of the facility has ballooned to 440 hectares (1087 acres), largely due to a larger tailings management facility. Environmental groups claim that the Back Forty’s environmental impacts could be significantly reduced by using common-sense feasible alternatives — but Aquila Resources has rejected these options.

Nearly all of the Back Forty rock is reactive, or capable of producing Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) when exposed to air and water. AMD pollution devastates watersheds, and lasts hundreds of years. Tailings and waste rock will be stored on-site during mining, and the tailings will remain on the surface forever. Aquila has told their investors they will pursue underground mining as a “second phase” of operations, but this is not acknowledged in any permit. Underground mining would extend the mine’s life from 7 years to 16 years, greatly magnifying risks. During closure, the open pit will be backfilled with waste and tailings; as a result, AMD groundwater contamination is predicted to seep into the river.

CSP2’s review will consider changes to the Back Forty mining permit, including environmental impacts, feasible alternative designs for waste storage, transportation plans, remediation, financial assurances, and the proposed use of an “upstream” tailings design, a risky construction method that has resulted in catastrophic tailings impoundment failures. Dr. Chambers, an internationally-known expert on tailing basins, will review this aspect of the permit.

“The Back Forty mine will threaten freshwater resources and destroy important cultural resources belonging to the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin,” said Kathleen Heideman, a board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

More than 120 concerned citizens, tribal members, environmental groups and others participated in the recent Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) public meeting, held on January 9th in Stephenson, MI. Many speakers expressed frustration over access to the permit files, including password errors, server problems,and  browser or operating system incompatibilities. In light of these problems, the MDEQ has been asked to grant a 30-day Extension of the Public Comment Deadline.

The Mining Action Group also requested a consolidated hearing process in order to discuss the Back Forty Mining Permit Amendment request, a modified Air Quality permit application, and a new Dam Safety permit application. “We need a thoughtful, consolidated hearing that will allow concerned citizens to discuss all of these interconnected permits,” said Heideman.

Technical review of the Back Forty Mine Permit Amendment is made possible by a collaborative effort of the Mining Action Group, the Front 40 Environmental Fight, the Coalition to Save the Menominee River, a 2019 grant from Freshwater Future’s Great Lakes Network, and a 2019 emergency mini-grant from the Western Mining Action Network.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Comments on the Aquila Back Forty permit will be accepted until February 6th at 5pm (EST). Mail comments to Back Forty Mining Permit Amendment, MDEQ-OGMD, 1504 West Washington Street, Marquette, MI 49855, or email comments to DEQ-Mining-Comments@michigan.gov with “Back Forty Mining Permit Amendment” as the subject.

The MDEQ has been asked to extend the Public Comment deadline, but no decision has been announced. Please contact Melanie Humphrey for an update on the extension request:  906-250-7564, HUMPHREYM@michigan.gov

Instructions for reviewing the Back Forty permit materials were included in the MDEQ’s Public Notice: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogmd-mining-Back_Forty_mine_amendment-PublicMeetingNotice_1.9.2019_641172_7.pdf

Mission of the 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) 662-9987. Learn more about the UPEC Mining Action Group at miningactiongroup.org.

Mission of the Front 40 Environmental Fight
The Front 40 is a grassroots organization that was formed in early 2003 in response to the threat of a metallic mineral mine potentially being developed on the shores of the Menominee River in Lake Township, Michigan. It is the principal objective of the Front 40 Environmental Group to ensure that metallic sulfide mining operations are not allowed to adversely impact our rivers, lakes, groundwater and lands. Learn more about the Front 40 group: menomineeriver.com.

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