January 19, 2009 at 6pm: The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve will be hosting a Watershed Wildlife Workshop at the Peter White Public Library in the Community Room. A wildlife biologist will present information on species of concern in the Yellow Dog River and surrounding watersheds, such as moose, wolf, and cougar. This event is free but donations are accepted at the door. For more information, call 906-345-9223.
Tag Archives: Science
Event: Mining Heritage: Past, Present and Future
When: Saturday, Jan. 17, 2009, 10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m Central Time, 11:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Where: Patrick J. White Conference Room, West Iron District Library; 116 West Genessee; Iron River, MI 49915 (One block South of U.S.2, midtown); (906)265-2831
Contact person: Robert Rivera (906)265-3176
Concerned citizens of Iron County, with assistance from the Northwood Alliance, will hold a public forum, “Mining Heritage: Past, Present and Future”, on January 17, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the West Iron District Library in Iron River, MI. A morning session, beginning at 10:30 and ending at noon, will examine the history of mining in Iron County. Two afternoon sessions, beginning at 1:00, will examine remediation efforts at the Dober and Buck mine sites on the Iron River and the prospects of new mining development and its future effects. The sessions will feature a short film by the National Wildlife Federation about the Eagle Rock project on the Yellow Dog Plains near Marquette, and local experts and citizens will report on various aspects of mining. Numerous governmental and corporate spokespersons have been invited to participate, as have representatives of regional groups opposed to new mining development. There will be musical interludes in late morning and mid-afternoon, as well as question-and-answer sessions following the afternoon presentations.
Iron County, Michigan, is part of a mining district extending across the Upper Peninsula, Northern Wisconsin and Northern Minnesota. Both the Iron and Mesaba Ranges have experienced intensive mining, deeply imprinting local culture and significantly affecting the environment. Most mining activity ceased forty or more years ago, but the heritage persists. Now, new mining exploration and development, including uranium exploration, are arising throughout the region. This movement, and techniques such as sulfide extraction, may bring to the area threats historically unseen with traditional methods of copper and iron ore mining. The allure of economic development has been confronted by those concerned with potential environmental damage and future economic costs from short-term gains.
For more information on this event, contact Robert Rivera at (906) 265-3176.
The Latest Issue of The Splash Now Available Online
“The Splash,” is now available. Check inside the Marquette Monthly during the month of January or click here to view the online version.
Sulfide Mining Documentary YouTube Clips and DVD Ordering
Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance
A Documentary Film on Sulfide Mining
“Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance” is a timely, compelling documentary that lays bare a controversial proposal to blast a mine beneath a blue ribbon trout stream in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
The 33-minute story is told through the passionate voices of scientists, community activists, tribal officials, and others who care about protecting our most precious asset water. Watch a short excerpt that focuses on one aspect of the controversy — the apparent disregard for Native American treaty rights.
Despite extensive scientific testimony that the project’s flaws could place workers in peril and jeopardize a Lake Superior tributary and its watershed, citizens and environmental organizations have found the state’s leadership unresponsive and now look to the justice system for resolution.
“Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance” was underwritten by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and produced by Brauer Productions, Inc. and Summit Public Relations Strategies, LLC.
Below are clips from the movie:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFT1cuRyrY[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t-TrOCibjk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b3efzkGmZk[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gheTH8ktXb4[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2n3IfYsi8[/youtube]
Coaster Desision Delayed
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is postponing a decision on the listing of the coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) as endangered, under the federal Endangered Species Act. The agency is expecting to reach a final decision by April 15, 2009.
In February, 2006, the Sierra Club and Huron Mountain Club (HMC) filed a joint petition with the USFWS to seek protection for the coaster, under the Endangered Species Act.
The USFWS cited the recent completion of a genetics study as the reason for the delay. Kim Scribner, professor at Michigan State University’s (MSU) Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, co-authored the study with other researchers from MSU and Michigan Technological University.
Jessica Hogrefe, biologist from the USFWS’s Division of Endangered Species, said that the new genetics information is “important to consider” and that preparing for a decision on the coaster is “a high priority.”
According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Isle Royale National Park provides habitat for two, distinct, strains of coasters, Tobin Harbor and Siskiwit. The DNR raises and stocks these strains, as well as the Nipigon strain. Efforts have been made, recently, to reintroduce coasters into the Mosquito, Seven Mile and Hurricane Rivers at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. According to the DNR, the coasters, once abundant in Lake Superior tributaries and along the coast, faced a rapid decline as a result of overlogging in the 19th century, overfishing and introduction of the sea lamprey, in the 1950s. The introduction of non-native fish species, such as Pacific salmon also contributed to the decline.
Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s metallic sulfide mine project, on the Yellow Dog Plains, threatens the last remaining, naturally reproducing, population of coasters on the southern shore of Lake Superior. Coaster reproduction is dependent upon stable water temperatures produced by groundwater upwelling and is also affected by increased stream sedimentation. Fish populations are also affected by acid mine drainage and increased levels of toxic heavy metals. Kennecott plans to release 184,000,000 gallons of treated wastewater into groundwater adjacent to the Salmon Trout if it receives an Underground Injection Control permit (UIC) from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Kennecott has already contributed to soil erosion into the Salmon Trout River. In April 2005, a culvert that Kennecott designed and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approved, failed, dumping an estimated 98 tons of sediment into a branch of the Salmon Trout River.
Kennecott, and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, both neglected to consider the effects of blasting on the coaster population. As a result of fish studies showing the effects of detonating explosives nearby, Alaska now has laws protecting fish from the effects of underground blasting. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, blasting “within, beneath or adjacent” to a “fish-bearing waterbody” can damage fish eggs and traumatize or kill fish, causing damage to scales and internal organs, primarily the swim bladder.
The Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited (MCTU) has, repeatedly, expressed concern for the coaster’s safety.
On April 10, 2007, Patrick Kochanny, MCTU Chairman, issued a press release stating that “Trout Unlimited and the Michigan Council strongly oppose this project, and believe that it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Salmon Trout River to deny Kennecott’s application at this time….We are seriously concerned that analysis and review of the permit application may not have been conducted properly.”
Kochanny said this position was made at a March 30, 2007 meeting, following an extensive review of Kennecott’s mining application by “outside experts” and commented that “there is no room for error” when considering projected impacts to the Salmon-Trout River spawning grounds.
Hogrefe emphasized that the agency is still accepting information up until April 15 and the sooner they receive information, the better.
The USFWS has found itself involved in another facet of Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s mine plan. In September 2008, the agency requested the EPA to determine whether Kennecott’s mine plan would affect the endangered Kirtland’s warbler and the threatened Canada lynx. The EPA will also have to consider the threatened gray wolf. The USFWS noted that the warbler was found, near the mine project area, and that the region hosts habitat that could contain the Canada lynx. Because the EPA is mandated only to consider federal law in its actions it cannot consider potential impacts to the coaster until the species is listed under federal jurisdiction.
“The EPA was expected to issue a draft decision on Kennecott-Rio Tinto’s injection permit in December 2008. However, further information was required from the company, delaying a decision until at least late January 2009. If the coaster is listed, as endangered, following approval of the company’s permit, the EPA would have to reconsider its decision.”
Over 250 Attend Film Critical of DEQ and Kennecott in Marquette
Over 250 people attended a December 7 showing of the National Wildlife Federation’s (NWF) new film, “Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance.” The film was shown at Northern Michigan University.
The film focused on questionable behavior, at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, in permitting approval of Kennecott’s Eagle Mine application and featured members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), mining, geology and water quality experts, as well as UP State Senator, Mike Prusi.
Retired mining engineer and expert on local mine geology and rock mechanics, Jack Parker, attended the showing and participated in a panel that answered audience questions. According to Parker, because Kennecott’s plan is riddled with “errors and omissions” and looks like “an amateur had written the application,” the plan is “all bullshit” and the DEQ should “throw it out.”
Parker, who says he is adamantly “not against mining,” has over 60 years of mining experience and has worked on over 500 mining operations, including about ten years at the White Pine Mine.
According to Parker, Kennecott plans to leave much of the ore behind, taking only the richest available. Parker maintains that, since much of the ore is owned by the people of Michigan, mining only the high-grade and leaving the rest is “not responsible mining.”
The film focuses on the cover-up of a rock mechanics report highly critical of Kennecott’s mining operation. In March 2007, the DEQ was forced to withdraw proposed approval of the project when NWF pressed the agency for a report, commissioned by the DEQ, that criticized Kennecott for not using “industry best-practice” and maintained that the company’s conclusions were “not defensible.” The report noted the possibility that the roof of the mine could collapse, endangering workers and draining a branch of the Salmon Trout River.
In the initial report, reference was made to local mines, with similar geology, that have suddenly collapsed. This has occurred at the Athens Mine, west of Marquette. Subsequent versions of the report omitted any reference to case history that could affect permitting of Kennecott’s project.
Joe Maki, geologist with the DEQ’s Office of Geological Survey and Mine Team Coordinator for review of Kennecott’s application, acknowledged that he personally discarded the report, considering it “not useful” and “too technical.” Maki was absolved of wrong-doing through an investigation conducted by an unqualified former DNR employee who interviewed only DEQ employees for his assessment.
In the film, Senator Prusi said that Kennecott has not shown “good corporate stewardship” at some of its other operations and that he is “not fully confident” in the Michigan DEQ’s ability to monitor Kennecott’s activities effectively. Prusi acknowledged possessing little knowledge regarding the legal importance of Native American treaty rights.
KBIC member Pauline Spruce said that Kennecott’s plans to construct its mine portal at Eagle Rock, a culturally-significant site for area Native Americans, violates the Native American Freedom of Religion Act of 1979.
The film highlights communication from the DEQ’s Steve Wilson referring to Native American treaty rights as a “trump card” that could affect approval of the Eagle Mine.
According to NWF attorney, Michelle Halley, who hosted the event, at a recent contested case involving the DEQ’s mine project approval not one of Kennecott’s witnesses would personally guarantee the success of any portion of the mine.
Engineer Dr. Stanley Vitton, from Michigan Technological University, said that he was “shocked” when he discovered that companies can drill, without a permit, in nearly every part of the Western UP and cited Kennecott’s mine safety projections as inadequate. “Five percent [fail rate of the mine’s roof] is not acceptable.”
Parker compared Kennecott’s mine plan to a used car that looks decent, initially, but upon closer inspection has “doors that don’t fit,” “drips” and, when you kick the tire, “the wheel falls off.” According to Parker, Kennecott’s application is “deceptive, therefore illegal.”
Under Michigan’s new metallic mining laws, “A person who…intentionally makes a false statement, representation, or certification in an application for or form pertaining to a permit…is guilty of a felony and may be imprisoned for not more than 2 years.”
According to Halley and film co-producer, Angela Nebel, NWF plans to organize future showings of the film throughout the state. The film will be available on the NWF website.
The Kennecott Eagle Story, FACT or FICTION? by Jack Parker
November 15th 2008
Every few weeks for the past couple of years Kennecott has served up a dose of pablum to the general public, letting us know how much they care and what a good job they are doing as they prepare a prosperous future for the local economy.
It is perhaps a sign of the times that nobody seems to mind when the facts are bent a bit – except for a few spirits living and crying out there in the wilderness – just as few folks objected strongly enough when we were talked into going to war and spending our way into bankruptcy. The “dumbing down” process has worked like a charm.
But people may be coming to their senses, and I, an innocent bystander, semi-retired, with sixty-odd years of mining experience, here and abroad, am led to shed some light on the Kennecott Eagle project and the propaganda to which we have been exposed.
In April 2006 I agreed to help the National Wildlife Federation to review the Kennecott application for a permit to mine – with a reservation that I would help with technical matters but wanted no part of politicking. I am not against mining; I believe that there are good orebodies on and around the Yellow Dog Plains; I believe that they should be mined – but, if they are to be mined then let it be done responsibly and not necessarily for instant gratification. Leave some resources in the ground for our children. They are, after all, worth more than money in the bank.
I have studied the application and related documents almost full-time since April 2006 (without pay after the first year) because I wanted to see the job done right. After a couple of weeks I had seen so many errors and omissions in the application that I recommended, verbally and in writing, that the document be “Returned to sender, collect, as inadequate”. I added that if a student had handed it to me I would have told him to take it home and do a better job, or flunk. Period! The application itself was not a responsible document. Further study only made it look worse. I have not changed my mind.
Later I learned that David Sainsbury, a respected consultant hired by the DEQ to review the mining aspects of the application, had expressed a similar opinion, stating, more discretely, that the methodology of the study and design work on which the application was founded was “Not considered to be defensible” – which my dictionary tells me means that it can not be supported by fact. No good. So his reports were suppressed. Following a protest the DEQ sponsored an internal “investigation” and mysteriously found that “No wrong had been done”. However, since they did not address his concerns but decided to ignore them – they are in fact still suppressed. The wrong has been done.
Further support came from the other world-renowned mining consultant hired by the DEQ, Wilson Blake. In answer to questions from Bruce Wallace, attorney, he told us, p.857 of transcript: I was probably the first to apply finite element analysis to mine design. After a few years I dropped it. On pages 861, 864 and 878 he used the “I don’t do” words, summing up on p878 thus: “I – as I say, I don’t do RMR’s (a building block for Kennecott design). I don’t do scale spans. I don’t do CP (crown pillar) analyses. I don’t do numerical modeling anymore.” In essence he prefers to go and take a look at situations …
Thus both of their hired mining experts decried the Kennecott approach to mine design – not defensible – should be returned to sender.
A very real concern is that nobody has made an independent evaluation of the application. Nobody but Kennecott had access to all or most of the original data. All were fed data which had already been interpreted and, in some cases, doctored, by Kennecott. Not one was independent, thus all are suspect and of no value.
Please be aware that the basic assumptions on which all of the analyses and designs were based are not valid, therefore the conclusions and recommendations are likewise not valid. Period! There’s nothing to quibble about. Throw it out!
Be aware too that nobody can give a reliable assessment of potential stability or instability of the mine, and the crown pillar in particular, without knowing the state of stress in the rocks there – and nobody does know the state of stress. Calculated safety factors and probabilities of failure are therefore worthless. They are actually worse than worthless because they offer a false sense of security to the unwary or uninformed.
These very basic concerns were made known to Kennecott and to Rio Tinto; to the MDNR and DEQ and to the courts, and to all “experts” involved in the project – but without exception they have been, to date, blithely ignored and the project has been pushed as if all was satisfactory.
I must presume that nobody else has applied enough time and effort to evaluate the application properly, responsibly, and can only conclude that those in authority and/or advocating permission to mine as planned do not know what they are talking about, or were misled and are mistaken, or are practicing deception to ensure and expedite permits, which is illegal and merits time in jail.
For me the matter was brought to a head by a recent newspaper headline that a judge had “Case dismissed against the Eagle project”. That, of course, was devious wording since it implies that the project could now go ahead. The decision was questionable too because Kennecott’s plan would result in air, ground and water pollution greater than the required standards. Results will be cumulative, and worse, if the size and life expectancy of the mine are increased.
Remember that this discussion pertains to the mine as planned in the Feb 2006 application – on which the permits were to be adjudged. Any changes will have to be reviewed before action is taken.
To save time and space I will now jump ahead to the last paragraph in that article (in both Mining Gazette and Mining Journal, mid-November 2008) in which the spokesman for Kennecott regurgitates his pablum.
I quote:
“KENNECOTT HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMITTED TO BUILDING THIS MINE THE RIGHT WAY, USING THE BEST DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND PRACTICES AVAILABLE FOR ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE EAGLE WILL BE LOCATED”, SAID JON CHERRY, EAGLE PROJECT GENERAL MANAGER.
Absolutely wrong on all counts.
We can, if necessary, repudiate the statement – itself a blatant deception – by documenting the shortcomings in the application – error by error, omission by omission, deception by deception. We have already done that for the authorities. It remains to be seen how they will handle the situation. It boils down to integrity.
Jack Parker
South Range MI 49963
New Sulfide Mining Documentary Show Times and Locations
Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance
A Documentary Film on Sulfide Mining
“Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance” is a timely, compelling documentary that lays bare a controversial proposal to blast a mine beneath a blue ribbon trout stream in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.
The 33-minute story is told through the passionate voices of scientists, community activists, tribal officials, and others who care about protecting our most precious asset water. Watch a short excerpt that focuses on one aspect of the controversy — the apparent disregard for Native American treaty rights.
Despite extensive scientific testimony that the project’s flaws could place workers in peril and jeopardize a Lake Superior tributary and its watershed, citizens and environmental organizations have found the state’s leadership unresponsive and now look to the justice system for resolution.
“Mining Madness, Water Wars: The Great Lakes in the Balance” was underwritten by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and produced by Brauer Productions, Inc. and Summit Public Relations Strategies, LLC.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFT1cuRyrY[/youtube]
“An easy tutorial on one of the most momentous environmental battles in Michigan history”
–Lawrence Cosentino
Lansing City Pulse
New SWUP Publication “The Splash” is Now Available
Save the Wild UP would like to announce that our new publication, “The Splash,” is now available. Check inside the Marquette Monthly during the month of November or view the PDF version here.
Sudbury Health Risks Report Review Commissioned by Steelworkers
A report prepared by nationally known pollution watchdog, Environmental Defence Canada, says that the Sudbury Soil Study Human Health Risk Assessment Report (HHRA) “cannot demonstrate that there is no harm occurring, it can only estimate level of risk. The assessors have inappropriately decided what that acceptable level of risk should be. This is a decision the community should make.”
The review of the HHRA was commissioned by Mine Mill 598 and Local 6500 of the Steelworkers this summer, and released this morning.
In response to the report, a number of community residents and organizations have banded together to form the Community Committee on the Sudbury Soil Study. The Community Committee is urging the Ontario Ministries of Environment and of Labour to step up and assume their responsibility for the health of Sudburians.
The Environmental Defence report sets out a number of serious findings:
- Lead contamination is above safe levels in Greater Sudbury, and children may be harmed at these levels;
- Air levels of nickel are higher than recommended exposure in three communities;
- There are concerns that inhaled arsenic and specific types of ingested arsenic may put Sudbury residents at risk;
- Higher levels of lead, arsenic and nickel in Sudbury-grown foods are a concern for those eating them;
- The assessment assumes it is acceptable to expose workers to greater level of risks, who receive greater doses of nickel and other contaminants during their employment.
The Committee was represented at today’s media event by Rick Grylls, President Local 598, John Fera, President Local 6500 Steelworkers, Monique Beaudoin, Centre de Sante Communautaire, and Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch. Many other Committee members were also present.
“We want to see the Government ensure that the public decides what level of risk it can accept, what will be done to clean-up affected properties, and what will be done to treat those whose health is at risk”, said John Fera. “The process to date has been dominated by the companies who are responsible for the mess.”
Said Brennain Lloyd: “We need the Ontario Government to help the public formulate a response to the Soil Study. The Ecological Risk Assessment has yet to be released, and we don’t want another green-wash. The public needs and deserves real involvement in reviewing these results, and the government needs to be ready to take real action at the end of the process”.
“It is not acceptable to exclude the extra health risks for the 25-35,000 current and past workers in Sudbury,” said Rick Grylls. “The community has to decide the acceptable levels of risk and what should be done to deal with the problems.”
Monique Beaudoin, Health Promoter for the Centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury says, “the francophone community and the community in general have the right to information in their language and to the tools and resources that will allow them to participate effectively in the Ecological Risk Assessment. The environmental health of our community is at risk and the public has a right to be fully informed and to determine the level of risk it is willing to live with”.
Copies of the Environmental Defence Report are available from http://www.toxicnation.ca/toxicnation-studies.
Environmental Defence is a national non-profit organization that seeks to connect Canadians with key environmental and pollution issues. Its Toxic Nation campaign undertakes studies and advocacy for change. The HHRA report was reviewed by Dr. Kapil Khatter.
Dr. Khatter is a family physician and an environment and health expert who has led chemical-related policy work at Environmental Defence (www.environmentaldefence.ca). He has a Master’s degree in Environmental Studies and has sat on a number of working groups tasked with providing expert advice to Health Canada and Environment Canada. Dr. Khatter is also a board member of Health Care Without Harm and the President of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
For more information, contact:
Environmental Defence – Aaron Freeman, Policy Director 613-564-0007
CAW Local 598 – Rick Grylls, President, 705-673-3661
Centre de santé communautaire de Sudbury – Monique Beaudoin, Health Promoter, 705-855-8084 ext 211
Northwatch – Brennain Lloyd, 705-497-0373