Tag Archives: epa

EPA Objects to the Issuance of Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit

Posted on by

STEPHENSON, MI — The Front 40 Environmental Group and the Mining Action Group (MAG) of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC), along with their regional environmental allies and fishing organizations, applaud the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) significant objections to the issuance of the Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit.

The EPA’s objections were announced in a March 8th letter to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Federal concerns are detailed in a supporting document, representing the combined comments of the EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA’s letter identifies seven primary areas of concern regarding the wetland application, and directs the DEQ to resolve those concerns within 90 days. If not resolved in that time, DEQ is directed to deny the permit for the mine.

EPA’s objections include:

  • Aquila’s failure to provide a complete description of the project, including a final site plan showing the final location of key features of the project, a proposed power plant, planned underground mining facilities, and stormwater and mining water management facilities.
  • Lack of relevant information on the stability and integrity of the mine pit to be located on a bluff above the Menominee River, including an analysis of slope stability and erosion of the river bank.
  • The application “states that the project will not adversely affect water quality of the Menominee River but does not explain how the project will be managed to ensure discharges will meet water quality standards, including sufficient monitoring locations, minimization measures, and adaptive management procedures to prevent leaching of toxic compounds from mine storage facilities and from the mine pit into the River.”
  • Aquila’s failure to adequately characterize secondary impacts to wetlands and “lacks information regarding the extent of wetlands that will be impacted by the project and how these wetlands will be affected by the proposed project’s Menominee River drawdown of some 125,000 gallons per day.”

Critically, the EPA found that Aquila failed to provide adequate support for their determination that “offsite upland alternatives for some mine features (e.g., tailings storage) are not practicable”, and that they did not provide “needed information to determine whether some 500 acres of wetlands and uplands that were selected for preservation meet statutory requirements to be used as wetland and stream mitigation.”

Unless Aquila Resources satisfactorily resolves all of the EPA’s objections within 90 days, the DEQ cannot issue a Wetlands Permit for the Back Forty Project.

The Michigan DEQ continues their review of the Aquila Back Forty Wetland application, recently sending a letter to the company asking them to respond to more than 34 pages of detailed public comments, selected and synthesized from approximately 3,420 total written comments received on the Wetland application by the DEQ’s Water Resources Division. Aquila was asked to respond by March 23rd. http://bit.ly/DEQ-to-Aquila-PublicComments

“We are thrilled to see EPA leading the charge to protect Michigan’s world-class waters and habitat from the potentially devastating impacts of the Aquila mine development,” stated Cheryl Kallio, Associate Director for Freshwater Future. “We are proud to support the efforts of groups like Front 40 and UPEC Mining Action Group, who are leading the charge to evaluate this complex permit application, helping ensure decision makers within these federal agencies have the facts they need to do their job protecting Michigan’s wetlands.”

“The Aquila Back Forty property, as viewed from Wisconsin side of the Menominee River. A large open pit sulfide mine is proposed for this site.” March 10, 2018. Photo by Deborah Skubal.

“We’ve opposed the Back Forty project since 2003. Fifteen years later, we still object. We are fighting to protect the Menominee River from this disaster-waiting-to-happen. We are encouraged by EPA’s objections to the Wetland permit, and we expect to see this dangerous permit denied,” said Ron Henriksen, spokesperson for the Front 40 Environmental Fight.

According to a statement released by Great Lakes Council of Fly Fishers International President Dennis O’Brien and Conservation Chair Dave Peterson, “The Great Lakes Council is pleased that the U.S Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the significant deficiencies in the Aquila application. This mine poses a threat to the health of the Menominee River and its fishery. The Council is pleased to support the wetlands analysis submitted as part of the permit review process.”

If fully permitted, the Back Forty would be a large open-pit sulfide mine on the bank of the Menominee River, the largest watershed in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 100 feet from the water. Aquila proposes to process ore on-site, using cyanide and other chemicals. Tailings waste will be stored permanently at the site. Geochemical testing shows that most of the rock is “reactive” or capable of producing acid mine drainage (AMD) when exposed to air and water. AMD devastates watersheds. It is difficult and expensive to remediate, and may continue leaching from the tailings into surface and groundwater for hundreds or thousands of years.

Under Michigan regulations, Aquila bears the burden of demonstrating that either (a) the proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being located in the wetland, or (b) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and must use all practical means to minimize impacts to wetlands. An independent review of the Wetland permit by Dr. Kendra Zamzow of the Center for Science in Public Participation concludes, “The mining permit and wetland permit are inextricably linked.” The Wetland Permit application, however, relies upon a facilities design for the mine site which is significantly different from the design presented in the Mining Permit Application, and “pose risks to wetlands that have not been analyzed.”

“Aquila seems to present different information depending on its audience. It applied for permits for an open pit mine operation of 7 years, while telling investors that the project will include underground mining and operate for 16 years. Our review found that Aquila collected inadequate data on groundwater flow and used textbook values, off-site data, and estimated values for certain parameters in its groundwater models. Based on flawed and inaccurate models, Aquila makes the ridiculous claim that this mine will have ‘NO IMPACTS’ on wetlands just outside the project boundary, the adjacent Ecological Reference Area, and wetlands that straddle the property line,” said MAG member Steve Garske.

“We are encouraged by the diligent approach to qualifying and quantifying the serious issues involved with the Aquila application. The combined comments of the EPA, USFWS, and the Army Corps of Engineers mirror many of our own concerns about this mining company’s plans. As fisher folks and as individuals, we are working to protect water quality for our safe enjoyment of the Menominee waterway – and Lake Michigan. The affected parties are justifiably anxious about the significant environmental impacts effects of the Back Forty mine. We urge environmental regulators to be extremely wary in dealing with Aquila. We hope the entire wetland application gets turned down – flatly,” said Jerry Pasdo, president of the Wisconsin Smallmouth Alliance.

“The Back 40 proposal poses serious risks to drinking and surface water in the region and therefore requires thorough scrutiny.  We are especially concerned about impacts to the ancient sturgeon population in the Menominee River and Lake Michigan that many partners have invested in restoring over the last few years,” said Allison Werner of the River Alliance of Wisconsin.

“EPA’s objections align with our concerns. The Wetland permit application is shoddy, full of untested assumptions about wetland hydrology. The whole scheme hinges on a facility design for the Back Forty mine that no one has reviewed, much less approved,” said Kathleen Heideman, a member of MAG.

Front 40 and the Mining Action Group of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition expect that  the Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit application, after thorough examination by federal and state regulators, must ultimately be denied.

“Aquila seeks to destroy almost thirty acres of wetlands in order to build a sulfide mine on the bank of the Menominee River. Their permit application is clearly unlawful. This is an alarming proposal, given the proximity of wetlands to the river. The total wetland impacts are underestimated due to flawed groundwater modeling, and additional years of underground mining which would expand the drawdown, with devastating effects on the surrounding ecosystem,” said Heideman.

A diverse coalition of fishing groups, residents, tribal members and environmental groups are united in their opposition to the Aquila Back Forty project. Downstream communities are worried about potential impacts to drinking water and tourism, and have passed nearly two dozen resolutions against the project. “The Menominee is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be damaged or destroyed, which is why I’m working hard to protect it from the proposed Back Forty mine. I don’t want to lose the river to a polluting – sulfide mine,” said Dick Dragiewicz, an avid fisherman.

“Open water on the Menominee River, near the proposed Aquila Back Forty sulfide mine.” Photo by Lea Jane Dale, Coalition to Save the Menominee River.

Fundamental objections to the Aquila Back Forty project remain unresolved. While the Wetlands permit has been under review, two contested case petitions have been filed: one by an adjacent landowner, and another by the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, supported by Earthjustice.

“Wetlands are strictly protected under both state and federal law. Before wetlands can be destroyed, Aquila needs to demonstrate that impacts are unavoidable. They failed that test. This permit cannot pass muster with environmental regulators,” said Heideman.

“I was amazed by the EPA’s strong letter in defense of wetlands. Aquila’s mine threatens the cultural and natural resources of the Menominee people, and a globally unique habitat known as the Shakey Lakes Savanna. The Menominee River is the worst possible place for an open-pit sulfide mine. Aquila’s plan for on-site milling is especially dangerous, and would needlessly destroy wetlands. Issuing the Back Forty Wetland Permit would violate the Clean Water Act,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

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.

“Sixty Islands section of the Menominee River, riparian wetlands located approximately 200 feet from the proposed Project Boundary. Aquila Back Forty Mine site, January 9, 2018.” Photo by Kathleen Heideman, Mining Action Group.

DOWNLOAD FILES

 

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 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 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

Wall Street Journal Prints ‘Alternative Facts’ By Lawyers Appealing CR-595

Posted on by

Marquette County Road Commission v. Environmental Protection Agency

Regional environmentalists are dismissing as “wildly inaccurate” an article published in the Wall Street Journal (*1) on March 3rd, entitled “How a Michigan County Road Got Stuck in Regulatory Purgatory”. The piece, co-written by two lawyers working on the Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “relied on ‘alternative facts’ and amounted to little more than a highly-placed publicity stunt,” according to Kathleen Heideman, a Board member of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition’s (UPEC) Mining Action Group.

The Wall Street Journal story plays fast and loose with the facts, according to Heideman, suggesting that the road proposal is a “shovel-ready” jobs initiative caught in “regulatory purgatory” and that the EPA was “vague” in their wetland objections, which ultimately “vetoed” a critical road building project.

In fact, the mine’s original (permitted) transportation plan matches the mine’s current haul route, and the “short cut” was only concocted after the mining company purchased the Humboldt Mill property for processing and refining their ore. The so-called “shovel ready” plan failed to clear the review of multiple federal agencies, including EPA, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Previously, the mining company told regulators that they would use “existing infrastructure” and develop a rail depot north of the city of Marquette. “Groggy college students” would not have been endangered by Eagle Mine’s original plan.

“REGULATORY PURGATORY”?  A FACTUAL HISTORY OF CR-595

From the beginning, environmentalists have contended that the Road Commission was trying to build an industrial road – a mining haul road for the benefit of a single company – rather than a County Road designed to benefit the public. “The Pacific Legal Foundation is attempting to recast this issue as an anti-EPA “states rights” issue, and revising history as they go. The facts of the case simply do not support their claims,” said Steve Garske, UPEC Board member and member of the Mining Action Group.

The CR-595 proposal was controversial from its first incarnation as the privately-funded “Woodland Road” proposal, which the owners of Eagle Mine (then Rio Tinto) offered to fund. Promoters of the “Woodland Road” claimed its main purpose was to provide local citizens with easier access to the roadless interior of Marquette County for hunting, fishing, berry-picking, and other recreational activities, while dodging massive ore trucks. Federal agencies objected to the “Woodland Road” plan on the grounds that impacts to wetlands and streams were poorly quantified, and because the road’s stated purpose was highly inaccurate.

Contrary to the Wall Street Journal article, the objections raised by federal agencies were always quite specific, as seen in early March 2010: “The application must quantify aquatic impacts, especially the following: the loss of headwaters and wetlands associated with headwaters, in each watershed; the loss of rare wetland plant communities, including bogs, fens and wet meadows; and water quality degradation due to runoff containing pollutants, and clearly indicate how the loss of each of these features would be compensated. This is necessary to allow (Michigan environmental regulators) to fully evaluate whether compensation is possible for the unique functions lost within each of the four watersheds… Woodland Road application is deficient in several areas, including reasonable comparison of alternative routes, an adequate 404(b)(1) analysis, and an adequate compensatory mitigation proposal.” (*2)

Remote Mulligan Creek wetlands complex, at the site of the proposed CR-595 crossing, photograph by Amy Cherrette (2016).

Woodland Road was later renamed “County Road 595”; the proposed route would have cut through 22 rivers and streams, including the Dead River and Yellow Dog River Watersheds, Mulligan Creek headwaters, Voelker Creek, and Wildcat Canyon Creek, destroying approximately 25 acres of wetlands, directly impacting 122 wetland complexes, and bisecting a major wildlife corridor, fragmenting both habitat and hydrology.

“The EPA’s decisions were not ‘arbitrary and capricious’ as the Road Commission has contended. Instead, they were in alignment with the concerns of the other state and federal agencies charged with protecting our natural resources,” said concerned citizen Catherine Parker.

Narrow leaved gentian growing at the Mulligan Creek wetlands complex, in the path of the CR-595 project. According to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, this rare native plant is a threatened species, ranked “S2, meaning imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state.” Photograph provided by Jeremiah Eagle Eye.

 

In 2012, when the EPA objected to the project’s failure to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and streams, it gave the MCRC and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 30 days to modify their plans. On January 3, 2013, the DEQ announced that it would not be issuing a permit for the project. The implication was that the state regulators simply ran out of time, and the mining company, impatient for a secured haul road, decided to invest in improving the existing route specified in its mining permit.

So Eagle Mine paid for a different seasonal road to be widened and paved as far as the mine’s gate, and plans for CR-595 were abandoned – but not forgotten.

After abandoning the CR-595 proposal, the Marquette County Road Commission “improved” an unpaved, seasonal road to serve as a Haul Route for Eagle Mine. The pavement ends at the gate of the mine. Photograph by Kathleen Heideman (May 2014).

 

In July 2015, the MCRC filed a lawsuit claiming the EPA had unfairly “blocked” the road’s construction. To be clear, the CR-595 project still could have been built, but wetland permits would need to be secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Yet MCRC never applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits to build CR-595. “It seems that Eagle Mine and the Marquette County Road Commission are allergic to federal permits. Certainly they’ve avoided federal oversight at every turn,” said Loman.

MCRC’s lawsuit against the EPA was heard by Federal Judge Robert Holmes Bell in 2016. Judge Bell dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the MCRC “doesn’t have a viable claim against the EPA.” The MCRC appealed, and Judge Bell denied the motion for reconsideration. According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, attorneys and a mediator appointed by the appellate court were to have discussed a possible settlement by phone on March 6. If no resolution was reached, the case will proceed to the 6th U.S. Circuit of Appeals.

According to a federal attorney familiar with the case, such mediation will “address only the pertinent questions of law.” The facts of the case were previously addressed by the lower circuit court, which dismissed the Road Commission’s lawsuit against the EPA as baseless.

JUST THE FACTS

While the Wall Street Journal pairs the story with a photograph of scenic downtown Marquette, Eagle Mine’s trucks do not actually run through downtown Marquette. Those most affected by the mining trucks are local residents along the route which runs along the outskirts of Marquette and other small towns, and the so-called “groggy college students” at Northern Michigan University, where ore trucks and logging trucks pass the north edge of campus.

Save the Wild U.P.’s Summer Fellows at the site of the proposed CR-595 crossing of the Dead River wetlands complex (2015).

“College students are the ones who will inherit this mining mess in a few years — along with the financial responsibility for a thousand other contaminated mine sites, milling sites, and haul routes that haven’t been properly cleaned up. If the Marquette County Road Commission gets its way, these young taxpayers will also be saddled with the cost of constructing and repairing another haul road for Eagle Mine, on top of their college debts,” said Jeffery Loman, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community tribal member and former federal oil regulator.

According to Parker, “MCRC never had a case. Period. The evidence is right there in the files I received through Freedom of Information Act requests.”

“The road proposal was not an environmentally responsible option, and doesn’t fix any of the problems created for our community by the sulfide mining industry. The MCRC’s proposed dredge-and-fill, slash-and-burn method of road construction would produce exponentially more greenhouse gas than would be saved by shortening Eagle Mine’s haul route,” noted Alexandra Maxwell, a UPEC Board member.

The proposed CR-595 road would have destroyed dozens of heavily forested wetlands along the route. According to new research (*3), forested wetlands provide extremely high carbon sequestration benefits, trapping anywhere from 2,750 to 4,100 pounds of carbon per acre per year.

“It is important to remember that any potential benefit to air quality from the shortened trip will be offset by the fact that road construction effectively converts forests into pavement. Construction permanently cuts and burns the surrounding forest, releasing stored carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Considering CR-595 would be approximately 66 feet wide for 22 miles (applicants stated that habitat removal would be at least 66 feet in width, totaling approx. 180 acres), this is a substantial loss for the climate,” said Emily Whittaker, Special Projects Manager for the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, another organization which has vigorously opposed the CR-595 project.

After the CR-595 road proposal was abandoned, the Marquette County Road Commission used slash and burn land-clearing methods to dramatically widen and pave the “Triple A” (a season unpaved road) as far as the gates of Eagle Mine. This photograph shows stumps and roots set on fire, using fuel accelerant, along the route. Photograph provided by Jeremiah Eagle Eye.

“More important than the question of carbon released or sequestered by the construction of a new haul road from mine to mill is the impact of the road itself to an undeveloped region of the Upper Peninsula. This road would be nothing like the ‘Woodland Road’ touted by its proponents. It would be an all-season ribbon of concrete within a wide corridor, a permanent swath fragmenting a sensitive and wild landscape,” remarked Jon Saari, historian and UPEC Board member.

“We should be thankful to the EPA for setting high standards for any big new highway. Our region is still recovering from the wounds of the last mining and logging era a hundred years ago. The Lonely Planet’s Best in Travel 2017 guide (*4) just cited the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as a national treasure for its beaches, waterfalls, small towns, and old forests — in other words its natural setting. The EPA recognized that, too, and showed some backbone in this political and legal fight,” said Saari.

Back in 2012, when the road proposal became mired in wetlands concerns, Michigan lawmakers were quick to make statements of support for the road, which touted short-term jobs to be created by road construction. Michigan’s unemployment rate has fallen sharply since then. But unemployment rates and robust economic development may not be the ultimate value in many residents’ minds. According to the results of a newly published survey by Michigan State University researchers (*5), most Michigan residents — 59% — “favor protecting the environment, even when there could be economic risks of doing so, such as job loss” and they “prioritize the environment over economic growth.”

The environmental threats are real. According to the 2014 report “Status and Trends of Michigan’s Wetlands” (*6), Michigan has lost 40% of its original wetlands since the start of European settlement. While the rate has slowed, wetland losses continue, with 41,000 acres of wetlands lost since 1978. The pressure to sacrifice Michigan wetlands for the sake of poorly-conceived roads or short-lived industrial developments – like CR-595 and Eagle Mine – continues. In requiring the MCRC to prove that a road through the wild heart of Marquette County was needed and would be designed to minimize impacts on the environment, especially wetlands, headwaters and aquatic resources, the EPA was doing its job: protecting our natural resources.

Aerial view of remote Wildcat Canyon Creek wetlands complex and logging trail, site of proposed CR-595 crossing, photograph by Kathleen Heideman (2015).

NOTES

  1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-michigan-county-road-got-stuck-in-regulation-purgatory-1488585470
  2. Letter dated March 12, 2010 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to EPA Region 5, concerning the Woodland Road proposal.
  3. See: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/freshwetlands.htm, authored by Dr. William Mitsch at Ohio State University’s School of Environment and Natural Resources, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation.
  4. See: Lonely Planet’s Best in Travel 2017 (2016), p. 169.
  5. http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/a-trump-twist-environment-over-economy-in-michigan/
  6. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-Water-Wetlands_-Status_and_trends_498644_7.pdf

###

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, visit our Facebook page, or contact: upec@upenvironment.org.

The UPEC Mining Action Group (MAG) is a grassroots effort to defend the clean water and wild places of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula from the dangers of sulfide mining – previously known as Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP). Contact the UPEC Mining Action Group at info@savethewildup.org or call (906) 662-9987. Learn more about the Mining Action Group at miningactiongroup.org or follow MAG’s work on Facebook or Twitter.

New highway proposed for Eagle Mine

Featured

Posted on by

Looks like Lundin Mining inherited a transportation route mess from Rio Tinto when it bought the Eagle Mine located 30 miles north of Marquette.

The Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) is considering a plan to use eminent domain to seize private property to build a new 55 mph highway from CR 550 (“Big Bay Road”) to the Eagle Mine. The MCRC has said it wouldn’t be making these improvements if not for the Eagle Mine, making it illegal to use eminent domain for the benefit of this multi-national mining company. Area property owners and residents are speaking out against the highway and the threat of eminent domain.

This is not a plan for road upgrades, this is a plan for a brand new highway — and we must speak out! Check out the proposed route changes to the Triple A and CR 510 and responses to questions raised at the recent public hearing. Area residents deserve a new Public Hearing to weigh in on the new proposed upgrades.

The MCRC modified the proposed realignment based on public outcry. But the process is on an accelerated path; as the MCRC approved its plan modifications at the same meeting the modifications were proposed.

Your voice is important! Write a letter to the editor, or call your local Marquette County Commissioner to discuss the proposal for a new highway.

Meanwhile, the City of Marquette is struggling with Lundin Mining’s plan to run ore trucks through the city and Northern Michigan University’s campus. In July, the City Commission’s request to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to have transportation be considered part of the Eagle Mine’s permit was denied, which would have forced the mining company to mitigate environmental impacts of truck traffic in Marquette.

Though the Lundin Eagle Mine says they’ll only increase total truck traffic by a small percentage, these trucks will be filled with ore, increasing the weight on the roadways by an estimated 50%. This poses not only a financial burden on taxpayers for years to come, but, more importantly, a huge safety risk for our communities.

** Update** The City of Marquette Public Hearing was cancelled. We are disappointed that the City of Marquette has chosen to postpone tomorrow’s Public Hearing on a truck ordinance en lieu of private meetings with Lundin Mining Company.

Stay up-to-date with these rapidly-evolving issues by checking out our FB page at Facebook.com/SavetheWildUP — together we will keep da U.P. wild!

60-Day Notice to Sue the Environmental Protection Agency for regulatory failure at Eagle Mine

Posted on by
MARQUETTE — On Monday, June 24, 2013, Jeffery Loman, a Keweenaw Bay Indian Community member and Save the Wild U.P., a grassroots environmental group based in Marquette, filed a 60-day Notice to Sue the Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Water Act at the Eagle Mine near Big Bay, Mich.According to Loman, a former federal regulator with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in Alaska, the EPA failed to require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for treated mine water discharges at Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine. In 2010 Rio Tinto told the EPA that the discharges from the revised treated water filtration system were not below the surface of the ground. The State of Michigan issued a groundwater permit while acknowledging that these discharges would actually flow into the East Branch of the Salmon Trout River.

Both Loman and Alexandra Thebert, executive director of Save the Wild U.P. agreed that “the decision to file the notice to sue was done after great circumspection and careful review of what is occurring at the Eagle Mine.”

“We seek to correct what is nothing short of a regulatory fiasco at the Eagle Mine. This is just the first step in a multifaceted plan to do that in full measure — we are also calling for a federal investigation of the relationship between State of Michigan regulators and the mining industry,” said Thebert.

“In order to protect our communities and environment, we must ensure that regulations are followed,” said Margaret Comfort, Save the Wild U.P. president. “Rio Tinto — and other mining companies — cannot operate outside the law.”

The 60-Day Notice to Sue was sent by certified mail Monday, June 24 at 2:00 p.m. EST. The notice went to the Acting Administrator of the EPA in Washington D.C., the EPA Region 5 Administrator in Chicago, the U.S. Attorney General, the Governor of Michigan, and Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine President Adam Burley.