South Road – Projected Pollution Corridor

Posted on by

(Based on findings from the Red Dog Mine in Alaska)

A study done by the National Park Service in Alaska illustrates the dangers of the Kennecott South Haul Road. The Red Dog Mine in Alaska has a 51 mile haul road, and heavy metal pollution from Fugitive Dust flying off mining trucks has severely polluted the frozen tundra over a mile away from the road. Despite damning evidence of the pollution, nothing has been done, and plans for a second mine are currently being approved.

Below are maps from the NPS study, indicating the extent of pollution at the Red Dog Mine, as well as a projected pollution map for the proposed south road. In Alaska they were dealing with Lead and Zinc, and the problem of sulfuric acid drainage was non-existent because of very little precipitation and permafrost; in the U.P. we will be looking at Uranium dust, Sulfuric Acid, Zinc, Nickel, etc.

“Anchorage, Alaska – Today, Alaska Community Action on Toxics released newly discovered information concerning high levels of lead and zinc contamination at the Red Dog Mine port site. A monitoring program conducted at the Red Dog mine’s port site in the mid-1990s found lead levels in soils as high as 36,000 parts per million (“ppm”) and zinc levels as high as 180,000 ppm, far in excess of state cleanup standards of 1,000 ppm for lead and 8,100 ppm for zinc. Although the monitoring program was conducted at the request of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), this information was never released to the public.”
Read More

Pb Pollution Corridor

Pb Pollution Corridor

Projected Pollution if the U.P. were covered by permafrost. In actuality, the corridor of pollution would likely be much larger because the U.P. is covered with flowing water.

Southroad Projected Pollution

Southroad Projected Pollution

“The Red Dog Mine Haul Road traverses 24 miles of National Park Service (NPS) lands in Cape Krusenstern National Monument (CAKR), Alaska. Ore trucks use the road to transport 1.1 million dry tons of lead-zinc concentrate annually from the mine to a port site on the Chukchi Sea. In the summer of 2000, moss and soil samples were collected from six transects perpendicular to the haul road in CAKR. Laboratory analyses were performed on the moss Hylocomium splendens, soil parent material, road dust, and substrate from materials sites. Analysis revealed a strong road-related gradient in heavy metal deposition. H. splendens was highly enriched in lead (Pb > 400 mg/kg), zinc (Zn > 1800 mg/kg), and cadmium (Cd > 12 mg/kg) near the haul road. Concentrations decreased rapidly with distance from the road, but remained elevated at transect endpoints 1000 m – 1600 m from the road (Pb >30 mg/kg, Zn >165 mg/kg, Cd >0.6 mg/kg). Samples collected on the downwind (north) side of the road had generally higher concentrations of heavy metals than those collected on the upwind (south) side.”
Read More

Read the NPS Full Report

Over 575,000 Pounds of Toxics Discharged into Michigan’s Waterways

Posted on by

Industrial facilities dumped 575,930 pounds of toxic chemicals into Michigan’s waterways, according to a report released today by Environment Michigan: Wasting Our Waterways: Industrial Toxic Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act. The report also finds that toxic chemicals were discharged in 1,900 waterways across all 50 states.

“While nearly half of the rivers and lakes in the U.S. are considered too polluted for safe fishing or swimming, our report shows that polluters continue to use our waterways as dumping grounds for their toxic chemicals,” said Shelley Vinyard, Environmental Associate with Environment Michigan.

“The Detroit River has played an important role in the economic development of Southeast Michigan,” said Robert Burns, Detroit Riverkeeper. “From an early trade and transportation route, to its current role as the source of drinking water and recreational opportunities for millions of people. Protection of the river’s water quality and its natural resources is essential for maintaining the quality of life for the area’s residents.”

The Environment Michigan report documents and analyzes the dangerous levels of pollutants discharged in to America’s waters by compiling toxic chemical releases reported to the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory for 2007, the most recent data available.

Major findings of the report include:

• The JR Whiting Generating Plant and the Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant released a combined 65,794.7 pounds of toxic chemical waste into Lake Erie. The Mead Johnson & Co. facility was the largest reported polluter of toxic chemicals in Michigan in 2007.
• The Detroit River had 70,290.9 pounds of chemicals dumped into it in 2007.
• The Escanaba Paper Company released 3,125.0 pounds of cancer-causing chemical waste into the Escanaba River in 2007.

With facilities dumping so much pollution, no one should be surprised that nearly half of our waterways are unsafe for swimming and fishing. But we should be outraged.

Environment Michigan’s report summarizes the discharge of cancer-causing chemicals, chemicals that persist in the environment, and chemicals with the potential to cause reproductive problems ranging from birth defects to reduced fertility. Among the toxic chemicals discharged by facilities are lead, mercury, and dioxin. When dumped into waterways, these toxic chemicals contaminate drinking water and are absorbed by the fish that people eventually eat. Exposure to these chemicals is linked to cancer, developmental disorders, and reproductive disorders. In 2007, manufacturing facilities discharged approximately 1.5 million pounds of cancer-causing chemicals into American waters.

“There are common-sense steps that should be taken to turn the tide against toxic pollution of our waters,” added Vinyard. “We need clean water now, and we need the federal government to act to protect our health and our environment.”

In order to curb the toxic pollution threatening our Great Lakes and other waterways across the state, Environment Michigan recommends the following:

1. Pollution Prevention: Industrial facilities should reduce their toxic discharges in to waterways by switching from hazardous chemicals to safer alternatives.
2. Tough permitting and enforcement: EPA and state agencies should issue permits with tough, numeric limits for each type of toxic pollution discharged, ratchet down those limits over time, and enforce those limits with credible penalties, not just warning letters.
3. Protect all waters: The federal government should adopt policies to clarify that the Clean Water Act applies to all of our waterways.

This includes the thousands of headwaters and small streams for which jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act has been called into question, as a result of recent court decisions.

“We know these industrial toxins are harmful to both our health and our environment,” said State Representative Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor), Chair of the Michigan House of Representatives’ Great Lakes and Environment Committee. “As the Great Lakes state, we simply must work to preserve our inland lakes and streams, and send a strong message to manufacturers that it is unacceptable to continue to put Michigan’s citizens and natural resources at risk. By protecting the waters that define us, we are protecting our families, our jobs, our farms and the very features that make Michigan a special and unique place to live.”

“We urge Congress and the President to listen to the public’s demands for clean water. They should act to protect all of our lakes, rivers and streams from toxic pollution,” concluded Vinyard.

Environment Michigan is a statewide, citizen-based environmental advocacy organization that works to protect Michigan’s air, water, and open spaces. For more information, visit www.EnvironmentMichigan.org.

Road Commission Decision on South Road October 19

Posted on by

Marquette County Road Commission Meeting
Monday, October 19, 2009
Ishpeming Township Hall (note location change)
6:30 pm

The MCRC will either vote to accept Kennecott’s Proposed South Road plan or defer the decision until a later meeting. At a public hearing held Sept 28, a group of 20 citizens voiced their concerns about the proposed route and urged the commission to postpone their decision until Kennecott 1) amends their mining permit and 2) obtains all of the necessary permits to do their mining business.

Urge the commission to postpone their decision on the public portion of this massive road project that promises to

 degrade and destroy the wilderness highlands of Michigamme Township
 displace wildlife
 open thousands of acres to intensive logging, sulfide mining, and other development
 threaten the ecological health of sensitive wetlands, streams and rivers

TAKE ACTION:
Attend the meeting Monday night!

If you cannot,

Call  MCRC, Jim Iwaniki,  Monday and voice your concerns!          486 -4491 Ext. 200

Ballot Initiative Moves Forward

Posted on by

LANSING (AP)

A proposed Michigan ballot measure that would prohibit some types of mining and restrict others took a small step forward Wednesday.

The petition form submitted by a group called the Michigan Save Our Water Committee was approved by a state election board. The group would have to collect more than 300,000 valid signatures of Michigan voters to get its proposal on the statewide November 2010 ballot.

The group has not yet started collecting signatures but says it could begin that process by the end of the year.

Supporters say the ballot measure calls for tougher laws to protect the Great Lakes, inland lakes, rivers and the rest of the environment from contamination caused by some types of mining.

Opponents of the ballot proposal say it would cripple Michigan’s mining industry and severely damage the Upper Peninsula’s economy.

”The proposal winds up being a direct assault, a direct attack on the U.P.,” said Deb Muchmore, a spokeswoman for Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs, a developing opposition group that is expected to soon include mining interests. ”It would be a job killer and an industry killer for that region of our state.”

The most publicized mining dispute in Michigan is related to Kennecott Eagle Minerals Co.’s plans to mine nickel and copper in the Upper Peninsula. But supporters of the ballot proposal say their effort is much broader.

”This is not about one mine,” said Maura Campbell, Michigan Save Our Water Committee spokeswoman. ”This is us looking down the road.”

The measure would prohibit uranium mining and processing until ”new rules” are established to ”protect against the special risks associated with those activities,” according to the petition language.

Sulfide and other types of mines would have to be located at least 2,000 feet away from any lake, river or stream unless it is proven the mining operation won’t hurt the water.

Companies seeking permits would have to do more studying of potential environmental impact.

The Michigan League of Conservation Voters has endorsed the proposal. Some other environmental groups have not yet taken a position on the measure.

Community Reaction to the Initiative announcement

John Pepin of the Mining Journal questions the community

MARQUETTE – Both proponents and opponents of a new mining and water-related ballot initiative are digging their heels in for what is expected to be a hard-fought, costly battle to win over Michigan’s voters.

The state Board of Canvassers approved a four-page petition form Wednesday from the Michigan Save Our Water Committee. The committee – whose honorary chairman is former Michigan Gov. William Milliken – now has six months to gather 304,000 signatures of registered voters to get the measure on the Nov. 2, 2010 ballot.

“We are just strengthening the law that’s in place with some straightforward common sense (rules),” said Duncan Campbell, treasurer of the Michigan Save Our Water Committee in Detroit. “We think this issue is so important we need to go before all of the voters of Michigan.”

The legislative initiative would amend Part 632 – the non-ferrous metallic mineral mining section of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act – which was enacted in 2004 to govern mining projects like the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company site proposed for the Yellow Dog Plains in northern Marquette County.

Tougher restrictions – which some critics say are impossible to meet – would be added to the mining law, in an effort to protect Michigan’s water resources.

“This is not a regulatory measure, this is a prohibition,” said Lansing attorney Pete Ellsworth of the Detroit law firm Dickinson-Wright. “This is a measure that prohibits mining. I think that’s the only fair way of characterizing this.”

Ellsworth is offering election process and rules advice to a new Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee formed over the past couple of weeks to challenge the ballot initiative.

Ellsworth – who called the petition language “a lawyer’s field day” -said the provisions may prove to be unconstitutional. He said attorneys are still reviewing the numerous details of the proposal, but contends “the way the criteria is set up, it cannot be met.”

The initiative seeks to “prohibit uranium mining and processing until new rules have been established to protect against the special risks associated with those activities.” It would also “require a mining area to be located more than 2,000 feet away from any water body, unless it is proven that the mining operations will not cause any injury to groundwater or water bodies.”
A permit applicant would also be required to provide a regional groundwater and surface water analysis to enable an assessment of all potential impacts to those waters from the proposed mining project.

In a provision fashioned after a Wisconsin mining statute, applicants would also have to “show that another mine in the United States or Canada is similar to the applicant’s proposed mine in all relevant ways and operated for at least five years and has not harmed natural resources or caused any exceedance of applicable environmental criteria for at least 10 years after closure.”

The initiative would also “prescribe additional requirements for reporting, notification, permit review, permit amendments and enforcement.”

In Michigan, Kennecott’s proposed nickel and copper Eagle Mine is the first non-ferrous mining project to be permitted under Part 632, but it has not been built or operated, with legal and permit challenges still pending.

“You’ve got a call for regulation updates on a law that hasn’t been tested in terms of going into operation,” Ellsworth said.

Jon Cherry, general manager of Kennecott, said, “Kennecott is prepared to join others in fighting for the Upper Peninsula, and to protect the hundreds of jobs our company and its planned operations alone are set to create.”

“We’re still reviewing the proposal, but would initially observe that it is very misleading, with the sole intent of creating an outright prohibition of the mining industry in the U.P.,” Cherry said. “We don’t believe people will stand for that once they understand the true agenda of the proposal’s backers.”

And while some critics say the “Mi Water” ballot initiative is just the latest attempt to stop the Kennecott Eagle project, proponents say the scope of their amendments are also aimed at a much broader group of mining interests waiting for the outcome of Kennecott’s mining attempt – interests whose efforts could result in a new regional mining district in northern Michigan.

“There’s exploration across the U.P.,” said Kristi Mills, director of Save the Wild U.P. in Marquette. “The district is a concern, this mining district.”

Mills said the initiative would not affect the U.P.’s traditional iron mining operations, which Cliffs Natural Resources and other companies have undertaken for decades.

Employing technological advances, a good deal of resource exploration has been conducted in the U.P. over the past few years by several companies seeking gold, silver, copper and other minerals.

This may yield great potential for further development, which many people in the area see as an opportunity for a resurgence of mining jobs and economic prosperity.

“We could see a revival of mining across the Upper Peninsula not different than what it was, in terms of volume, dating back to the 1930s and 40s,” said Jon LaSalle of Marquette, chairman of the Citizens to Protect Michigan Jobs Committee.

“We stand to have a lot of jobs come out of the exploration and mining of those resources.

“This would really foreclose on the U.P.’s economic future if we were to say no to non-ferrous mining.”

Campbell said green jobs and sustainable jobs have been growing while mining and construction jobs have faltered.

“The problem with mining jobs are they are boom and bust and what’s left over is pollution for our children and our grandchildren,” Campbell said.

Babette Welch of Marquette has been working with Mi Water proponents to raise money to promote the ballot initiative. Alluding to Michigan’s recent successful “Pure Michigan” tourism advertising campaign, Welch said, “I’d like to change the concept of Michigan from being the rust belt to the water belt. I’m interested in preserving our water, having our pure Michigan with pure water.”

Many proponents of the ballot proposal contend clean water is essential to protect Michigan’s tourism industry. Welch said many of the images in the Pure Michigan campaign focused on the state’s beautiful water resources.

Mills said, “If we’re going to move forward into a more sustainable future, then we don’t need this type of mining that threatens our water.”

LaSalle said the U.P. cannot rely on tourism to provide jobs with health insurance, good wages and other benefits attractive enough to keep the region’s children working here after graduation from high school. He said 7 out of 10 people living here could not make a living from tourism.

“We all love to be tourists, but whether we should paint the U.P. into that economic corner, I doubt that,” LaSalle said.

Amy Clickner, chief executive officer of the Lake Superior Community Partnership in Marquette, agreed with LaSalle jobs are greatly important to the region, as is the environment.

“I don’t think it’s jobs at any cost,” Clickner said. “I don’t think there’s any group that thinks the environment is more important than those of us who live here, and to live here you have to have a job.”

On Oct. 3, the Upper Peninsula Association of County Commissioners adopted a resolution against the ballot initiative, with hopes of gaining the support of the state’s other 68 counties. Marquette County Board Chairman Gerald Corkin said the initiative would be detrimental to both the U.P. and Michigan. Corkin expressed concern about the location of the Mi Water campaign’s headquarters.

“It’s always a little scary when you’ve got a downstate group putting out a ballot initiative that mostly affects the U.P., but I guess that’s what we’re dealing with,” Corkin said.

Campbell said given the number of petition signatures needed, and the U.P.’s roughly 300,000 total population, the battle to put the proposal on the ballot must be fought from the Lower Peninsula where there are more people.

Campbell said that while the non-ferrous mining activities may be located in the U.P., the Great Lakes waters fed by the rivers and streams of the region reach the length of the state. Any pollution from mining activities could potentially impact the whole state.

“We all live downstream,” Campbell said.

Michigan DNR, DEQ are ordered to combine

Posted on by

Friday, October 9, 2009

Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing — Gov. Jennifer Granholm today issued an order to combine the departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality to create a Department of Natural Resources and Environment starting in January.

The department will be responsible for protecting, conserving and managing the state’s water, air and other natural resources.

The order would stand unless both the House and Senate disapprove of the changes.

The Department of Agriculture would stand alone under the directive, but the governor will appoint the director. Environmental groups supported Granholm’s move. “This is a chance for Michigan to reclaim our lost leadership role in managing our truly spectacular natural resources,” said a statement by the Sierra Club — Michigan Chapter, Clean Water Action, Michigan Environmental Council and League of Conservation Voters.

The Michigan Farm Bureau and other agriculture groups slammed Granholm for gutting the Agriculture Commission. The move politicizes the department, the Farm Bureau said.

Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival

Posted on by

The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, Downwind Sports, and Students Acting to Save Michigan Water will be hosting the national Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival this November. The festival will be a two night event, November 5th and 6th, in Jamrich 103 on the campus of Northern Michigan University.

The films address a range of environmental issues, from urban organic gardening to hydroelectricity to the impact of roads in wilderness areas. “I love the way each film focuses on issues that we all face, no matter what your beliefs are, but in a way that is visually exciting and very inspiring. All of the films have fantastic cinematography and lively soundtracks,” said Emily Whittaker, Executive Director of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve. “It’s great that our community is going to be part of this national circuit of festivals.”

The Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival is now the largest environmental film festival in the country, with over 100 venues nationwide. The main goal is to inspire activism in those who attend, and make a lasting impression on the environment. Marquette’s venue will show 10 films over two nights and feature local experts on the subject of each film.

For more info, visit our site at http://www.yellowdogwatershed.org/blog/2009/09/29/ydwp-hosting-film-festivalydwp-hosting-film-festival

Contact:

Emily Whittaker

Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve

906-345-9223

emily@yellowdogwatershed.org

Kennecott’s South Road:Map and Public Hearing Minutes

Posted on by

Please attend the regular County Road Commission meeting scheduled for Monday, October 19th, to voice your opinion on the public portion of the Kennecott Expressway. It will begin at 6:30 pm, at the Commission office in Ishpeming. (Turn right at Ralph’s Deli).  There will be a shuttle bus from SWUP for the first eight people who indicate interest leaving at 6:00pm.

Review: Public hearing minutes (DRAFT copy) below the map.

Map of the Kennecott Expressway:

kennecott-expressway1

Marquette County Road Commission

Public Hearing Minutes (DRAFT COPY):

September 28, 2009

DRAFT: Minutes are subject to change and will be considered for approval at the 10/19/09 meeting
Proceedings of a public hearing of the Board of County Road Commissioners of Marquette County, Michigan held on Monday, September 28, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. EST at the Ishpeming Township Hall.
Present: Darryll Sundberg, Chairperson David Hall, Vice Chairperson; Neil Anderson, Member; Joseph Valente, Member and Russell Williams, Member
Absent: none
In Attendance: Jim Iwanicki, Mary Herman, Kurt Taavola, Roger Crimmins, Frank Lorsbach, Al Feldhauser, Mark Holmes, John Meier, Ken Wooley, William Malmsten, Harvey Moore, Cynthia Pryor, Kristi Mills, Jim Nankervis, Richard Sloat, Chuck Brumleve, Dave Allen, Robert Rivera, Nick Taseris, Molly Taseris, Jon Koski and Lisa Brogan.
1.
Call Meeting to Order/Pledge of Allegiance:
Commissioner Sundberg opened the meeting at 6 p.m. and led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.
Public Hearing: Woodland Road:
Jim Iwanicki introduced the Woodland Road project as a culmination of several entities. He stated that the Marquette County Road Commission has received plans and written documentation regarding this road and there will be two categories of roadway – public and private. He stated that the purpose of the Marquette County Road Commission public hearing is to discuss only the public portion of the roadway.
Mr. Iwanicki said the Marquette County Road Commission will not take action on the road plans but will receive public comment on County Road CV, FY (1/2 mile) and the AAD intersection. In all, the public road portion is approximately 3 ¼ miles. He reported that the proposed roadway plans, for the most part, meet the Marquette County Road Commission road standards for All Season roads. Plans for the public road portions were made available for the attendees and were then reviewed by Jim Iwanicki.
Chairperson Sundberg discussed the Marquette County Road Commission policy on public comment and conduct and opened this portion of the public hearing to public comment.
Chuck Brumleve, KBIC Baraga asked about requirements when filing a mining permit for public roads. Jim Iwanicki stated that it is not normal procedure to do so and stressed the fact that the Marquette County Road Commission is treating Kennecott as he would any developer.

Richard Sloat asked about the flow of traffic and signage for the County Roads. Jim Iwanicki stated that some private roads may have the right of way but a full analysis will be done prior to posting signs on the roads.
Harvey Moore asked about weight restrictions on the proposed roadway.
William Malmsten, UP Environmental Coalition, commented and asked about public access on the road; specifically, allowing access to the Yellowdog Plains and he read a statement on behalf of the UP Environmental Coalition in the interest of preserving the wildlife.
Cynthia Pryor asked if the Marquette County Road Commission would be waiting for the DEQ permits to be approved prior to proceeding with the road approval.
Steve Garsky asked how much is new roadway in the Melvin Creek to the Triple A. Jim Iwanicki said he didn’t know at this time.
William Malmsten asked about traffic regulations being upheld, permission for placement of gates and what will happen to the private road portion when the mine is closed. Jim Iwanicki replied that traffic regulations will be upheld on the public road portion, but are under the jurisdiction of the law enforcement community, gates will not be allowed on the public road portions and Marquette County Road Commission will maintain the public road portion.
Jim Iwanicki stated that the Marquette County Road Commission will not directly see an increase in money with the approval of Woodland Road. He said the indirect benefit to the Marquette County Road Commission will come from gas sales and the percentage of the tax that the Road Commission will receive. He then discussed the proposed road and shoulder measurements.
Jon Koski asked about bridges and mitigation of wetlands. He suggested the mitigation be used in Michigamme Township. Jim Iwanicki stated that the DEQ would deal with wetlands on the public as well as the private roadways. It was then asked if the DEQ funding for mitigation would be affected by the State when the new budget is approved.
John Saari asked how Woodland Road is being funded.
Jim Iwanicki discussed the standards based on subdivision development and the Marquette County Road Commission driveway policy since a private road coming into a public is considered a “driveway”.
Steve Garsky asked permits were needed or given for blasting the hills in that area.
Kristi Mills questioned the treatment of this project as the “same” as any other development considering the size. Jim Iwanicki stated that he is following the
Marquette County Road Commission process for road approval. Ms. Mills expressed her concern that Woodland Road would be a “road to nowhere”.
Robert Rivera also questioned the Marquette County Road Commission treatment of every developer as the “same”, without consideration of the end result of the development. He stressed his concern with contamination and public safety. Jim Iwanicki restated that Marquette County Road Commission has to consider traffic, trucks using the road and the safety of the traveling public. The end destination is not a considering factor in the road approval process.
Cynthia Pryor stated her concern with public safety and asked if there were any alternatives. Jim Iwanicki stated that he has reviewed the report and plans and has found this alternative the safest.
A question regarding the Road Commission being liable for cleanup was asked. Jim Iwanicki stated that the Road Commission is liable for cleanup on the roadway if the responsible party is not found.
Robert Rivera asked the Board to consider the issue of morals in this case.
Further concerns regarding road construction, liability and bonding with the contractor took place.
After discussion regarding speed studies, appropriate signing of speed limits, precautionary signs and AASHTO standards for road construction, the Board was urged to not make a decision until all permits for the mine have been received and approved.

Adjournment:
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.

Lisa Brogan, Board Secretary

Wetlands program saved, but state budget cuts expected

Posted on by

October 1, 2009

James Clift, 517-256-0553

Lansing — The legislature will return to Lansing today to put the final touches on a bill that will keep Michigan’s wetlands program running at the state level for an additional three years.  Proposals had been made to send the program back to the federal government to operate on a limited basis.

Environmental groups applaud the efforts of the legislature to protect these critical resources. Wetlands protect neighborhoods from flooding, cleanse water before it reaches lakes and streams, safeguard the purity of well water and provide vital habitat for fish and other water-dependent wildlife.

“Keeping the program in Michigan is certainly an environmental issue, but it is also a very pressing economic issue,” said Grenetta Thomassey, policy director at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. “Sen. Patty Birkholz, Rep. Rebekah Warren, and Rep. Dan Scripps all understood that and worked tirelessly to help keep the needed perspective.  Relinquishing the program would have meant unacceptable work-related delays as our state climbs out of the recession, in addition to increasing the likelihood of damaging environmental violations.  And keeping the program here, and funded, keeps our prospects much higher for being eligible for Great Lakes Restoration funding from the federal government which will also create jobs as it restores wetlands and provides clean water infrastructure.”

Unfortunately, the retention of the wetland program is the only good news for natural resources in a budget deal that includes drastic reductions in general fund support for Michigan’s public health, water protection and natural resources management. In the case of the Department of Environmental Quality the cuts amount to a 39% reduction in general funds for program designed to protect public health. We believe the legislature must explore more thoroughly options that increase revenues, either through the elimination of outdated tax breaks or new sources.

MEC President Chris Kolb noted that the budget does not give away Michigan’s wetland protection program to the federal government – a positive and important development. But he said even that silver lining is not enough to outweigh the damage that draconian budget cuts will have.

Senate passes $400M Great Lakes bill

Posted on by

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Deb Price / Detroit News Washington Bureau

Washington — The Senate easily passed legislation tonight containing $400 million for Great Lakes restoration by deterring invasive species, cleaning up highly polluted sites and expanding wetlands.

The funding level for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative falls short of the $475 million passed by the House in June and supported by President Barack Obama.

Michigan Sens. Carl Levin, D-Detroit, and Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, voted for the bill.

Andy Buchsbaum, the Great Lakes project director at the National Wildlife Federation, said environmentalists will work with House-Senate conferees to try to ensure the final bill has the $475 million funding level.

“This is an unprecedented funding level for cleanup of the Great Lakes, and absolutely critical to bringing the lakes back to health,” Buchsbaum said.

Read entire article:   www.detnews.com/article/20090924/LIFESTYLE14/909240476/1409/METRO

The Detroit News: New era for Michigan mining

Posted on by

Video interviews

Jim Lynch / The Detroit News

Republic

Upper Peninsula mines have called the fathers, brothers, sons and, eventually, the mothers and daughters of the region’s families to work for more than a century.

Days spent in the dark and the dirt searching for copper, iron and nickel put food on the table and carved out a rugged identity for Michigan’s northernmost territory.

Only two mines still operate — a far cry from the industry’s heyday. The loss of that economic cornerstone, coupled with the national financial crisis, hit the region hard and pushed unemployment levels far above average.

Mineral companies are once again looking to the Upper Peninsula for a “new era in mining,” which could begin with the opening of a new nickel mine this spring. Their interest has risen with commodities prices, and the value of nickel reached record highs just two years ago partially because of its value in new battery technologies.

Company officials are approaching communities with the promise of new jobs, investment and money to aid governments and schools. Companies are buying and leasing mineral rights in anticipation of a new wave of mines. The first such project, Kennecott Minerals’ proposed Eagle mine near Marquette, is getting its share of support from elected leaders and citizens and providing the first test of state mining laws enacted four years ago. At least two other companies are investigating mine projects.

Environmental groups find the rush to bring in mining projects alarming. Mining can harm streams and groundwater and the effects could be felt for decades. The risk of long-term damage, they say, is not worth the short-term economic gains, particularly in an area as unspoiled as the Upper Peninsula.

Mark Onkalo of Republic, 30 miles west of Marquette, isn’t so certain. The 50-year-old Onkalo is part of a long line of men who made their living in the mines, including a great uncle who died in a cave-in. Onkalo is going on his 14th month without work.

“There are so many people out of work right now, millwrights are a dime a dozen,” said Onkalo, who hopes to land a job at the Eagle mine if the project goes ahead. “It’s terrible for me right now. I’m down to my last (unemployment) extension check.”

Those are the factors environmentalists are trying to overcome in their opposition to not only the Eagle project, but also the wave of mines that could follow if Kennecott is successful.

“Places like the Upper Peninsula are rare now to find,” said Joe Saari, a retired history professor and president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition. “And if we let them go because we think like we did in the 19th and 20th centuries — that you can never exhaust these resources or ever pollute this water so much that it won’t be usable and healthy for us — we’re wrong. We’ve seen that it can happen.”

Company pitches the pluses

Somewhere underneath the ground out here on the Yellow Dog Plains — roughly 30 miles northwest of Marquette — is a chunk of ore worth anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion or maybe more. It’s exactly the kind of high-grade nickel and copper lode Kennecott hoped to find when it began explorations in the Upper Peninsula a decade ago.

Yet it sits in amid land held dear by those who enjoy the outdoors as well as the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The entrance to the mine would be at the base of Eagle Rock, a place where Keweenaw community members go for celebrations and contemplation.

To drum up support for the Eagle Mine venture, company officials tick off a list of benefits to the community:

• 500 jobs for construction of the mine and the redevelopment of a mill site in Humboldt.

• As many as 200 full-time jobs once the mine and mill are online.

• Tax boosts for local government, school district and more than $100 million in revenue for the state.

• Construction of a $50 million 22-mile road through western Marquette County.

In a place like Marquette County, where the unemployment rate is 10.6 percent, or in neighboring Baraga County, where that number soars to 24.5 percent, such investment is water in the desert.

“Generations of families have been supported by the mining industry and had a great life in the Upper Peninsula,” said Lois Ellis, vice president of economic development for the Lake Superior Community Partnership. “So a lot of the population views the project positively as something we’re good at and something that can contribute positively to the economy.”

If work on the Eagle project gets under way this spring as the company plans, it will likely be the first of many new mines. Kennecott has identified 150 sites for potential operations in the Upper Peninsula and the company is spending as much as $5 million a year on exploration.

Two other companies have contacted Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality about potentially filing for mining permits. Orvana Minerals is looking at a copper ore body south of White Pine. Canadian company Aquila Resources announced this summer it intends to open a gold and zinc mine near Stevenson, possibly as soon as 2012.

Acid mine drainage feared

There is nothing subtle about the mining process. At the most basic level, it’s tearing minerals from the ground for processing and, environmentally speaking, it’s a process with a spotty history.

Kennecott’s owner, London-based Rio Tinto, is the second-largest mineral company in the world and has experience mining on six of the seven continents. Many of those projects have stirred up controversy over harm caused to the surrounding areas.

Company mines in places like Alaska and Utah are at or near the top of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s lists for toxic releases in those states. Environmentalists are threatening a lawsuit against Kennecott over pollution at the Flambeau Mine in Ladysmith in northwest Wisconsin.

For conservationists in the Upper Peninsula, the worry is acid mine drainage — sulfuric acid created by digging for metals like nickel and copper working its way into local waters. And the area targeted by the Eagle project, they argue, is particularly vulnerable.

“Ninety five percent of mines — underground sulfide mines that occur near surface water or groundwater — pollute,” said Michelle Halley, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation who has challenged the state permits issued to Kennecott’s Eagle project in court.

“That’s a risk that’s just too great to bear for the Yellow Dog Plains, the Salmon Trout River and the Yellow Dog River. In a worst-case scenario, as our experts predict, the roof of the mine caves in and takes the river with it. There is no contingency plan adequate enough to deal with that problem.”

In addition, Eagle’s critics point out that the jobs created are short-term — up to eight years before the mine is expected to play out. The money that comes along with the mine, they said, will only be a temporary boost.

And finally, they point to the state’s compensation. If Kennecott stands to reap billions from the Eagle mine, they ask, why is Michigan only getting $100 million from it?

Firm touts safeguards

Not surprisingly, company officials have a different take. Their mine in Salt Lake City ranks second on the national toxic release inventory simply because it moves more material than almost any other mine in the nation — as much as 500,000 tons of rock a day.

And the Flambeau mine, they argue, is a model program that received no environmental violations from the state during its operation in the mid-1990s or afterward.

Jon Cherry helped Kennecott remediate its Utah mine site before coming to Michigan as the Eagle project manager.

He said he is confident the company’s investment in the latest environmental safeguards — including liners to prevent drainage, and water treatment plants at the mine and the mill — make the mine a safer bet than those that came before.

“One hundred years ago they just started mining and you ended up with what you ended up with,” he said. “Today, it’s much more (protective) environmentally with a lot more rules and regulations, which I think is a good thing.”

Halley and others, however, want the company to put its money where its mouth is.

“Those same Kennecott people have been challenged under oath to guarantee that the mine will not pollute and the technology they propose will operate as planned,” she said. “And they won’t guarantee it.”

Asked if it’s fair for any company to be expected to issue a guarantee like that, Halley responded: “It’s fair when you have the world’s largest freshwater resource at stake.”

jlynch@detnews.com (313) 222-2034