Tag Archives: “Sulfide Mining”

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

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

####

Mission of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

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

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

 

CSP2 disputes claims in letter about Back Forty mine

Posted on by

Wednesday, January 30, 2019  – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writer disputes points, talks about permits

Posted on by

Tuesday, January 29, 2019 – Eagle Herald

Dear Editor,

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

Conrad’s letter made false statements, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to:

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

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

Dear Editor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nathan Conrad

Communications Director for the Natural Resource Development Association

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

This Smells Bad: Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit Approved

Posted on by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — JOINT PRESS STATEMENT

DEQ Director Approves Aquila Back Forty Mine Wetland Permit, Despite DEQ Objections

STEPHENSON, MI — Environmental groups are crying foul over Monday’s decision by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to approve the Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit. In a joint statement, the Mining Action Group (MAG) of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC), the Front 40 Environmental Fight, and numerous regional environmental groups say they are outraged by the unwarranted approval and are calling on DEQ Director to explain her decision.

“This smells rotten. Director Grether’s approval of the Aquila Back Forty Wetland permit was a political act, directly contradicting the recommendation of DEQ’s own Water Resources Division (WRD). This permit is inconsistent with the Clean Water Act,” said Kathleen Heideman of the Mining Action Group.

The Wetland permit should have been denied, according to the agency’s “Findings of Fact”:

“After due consideration of the permit application, on-site investigation and review of other pertinent materials, the Water Resources Division finds that the project does NOT demonstrate that an unacceptable disruption to the aquatic resources of the State will not occur and that the activities associated with the project are NOT consistent with the permitting criteria for an acceptable impact to the resources regulated under Parts 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, and Part 303, Wetlands Protection.”

Even the DEQ’s decision letter was not an endorsement: “We have determined that the (Back Forty) project as proposed could not be permitted without additional supporting documentation because the hydrologic modeling provided does not define the anticipated impacts to aquatic resources.”

Ron Henriksen, spokesperson for the Front 40 Environmental Fight, was stunned. “Against the findings of Water Resources staff, Director Grether of the DEQ granted a permit with 28 pages of ‘Special Conditions.’ Why wasn’t this permit denied? The serious hydrological concerns we’ve raised remain unaddressed. Aquila’s mine will harm wetlands of the Menominee River and aquatic resources shared by Michigan and Wisconsin, yet these concerns were somehow overruled. The Menominee River certainly deserves better.”

Overlooking the application’s gaping holes, DEQ issued Aquila’s Wetland permit “conditionally” and has required “submission and approval” of key additional information including “revised hydrologic modeling, an adaptive management plan, a comprehensive monitoring plan, and requisite wetland and stream mitigation.” Under the Clean Water Act, however, this information must be provided BEFORE a wetland destruction permit is granted, not after.

“Accurate hydrologic modeling, monitoring, and compensatory mitigation based on real data are the foundational requirements of a wetland permit application, not special permit conditions! By law, Aquila should have provided this information at least two years ago. This is fundamental to the review of any Wetland permit application,” said Steve Garske of the Mining Action Group.

The Clean Water Act requires compensatory mitigation ratios based on total wetland impacts, and a clear demonstration that the proposal is the Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative. According to the DEQ Water Resources Division’s “Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law”, the “application does NOT demonstrate that a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist. The application fails to fully define the extent of impacts to regulated resources.” Grether, in approving the permit, ignored the conclusions of those regulators who understood the permit application and its myriad failings.

How Was the Back Forty Wetland Permit Approved?

In a “Wetland Augmentation Plan” recently submitted to the DEQ, Aquila hedged the validity of their data, claiming that “confirmation of the findings pursuant to the modeling can only be accomplished by wetland hydrology and vegetation monitoring during mining operations.” Bad data? No problem, the mine said. Simply pump water from the Menominee River into the wetlands if impacts exceed estimates.

A few weeks earlier, Aquila recalculated their wetland impacts using a hydrological method recommended by multiple technical reviewers, and reported a 50% increase in the total acres of wetland impacts caused by dewatering — the application was getting worse, rather than resolving state and federal concerns.

“I am shocked by DEQ’s approval of the Aquila Wetland permit: in my judgement, there was an airtight case against it. We stand by our extensive technical comments, even though Grether chose to ignore the independent reports we commissioned. With her hasty political decision, the Director says science will not sway her approval process: ‘Mines first, environment be damned!’ Through our efforts, reviewing this permit, regional environmental groups demonstrated the Back Forty mine is a disaster in the making. Polluting the Menominee River again? Harming aquatic life? Damaging wetlands? For our survival, Aquila Resources and the State of Michigan must look beyond short-term profits,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

Strong Federal Objections

The EPA’s objections were first announced in a March 8th, 2018 letter to the Michigan DEQ:

“The applicant has not provided a complete description of the project, including a final site plan identifying the final location of key project features, including storm water and waste management features. The proposed site layout is not consistent with the approved state Permit to Mine. Nor are all impacts of the project identified in the application, including impacts caused by any planned underground mining, a power plant, and mining water management systems. Without this information, the reviewing agencies cannot adequately assess the extent of the proposed mine’s impact on aquatic resources as required by the CWA, and or determine whether the applicant has minimized and avoided aquatic resource impacts, as required.”

The EPA letter pointed out that Aquila “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.”

The EPA objected to “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.”

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.”

EPA directed the DEQ to “resolve those concerns” within 90 days. If not resolved in that time, DEQ was “directed to deny the permit for the mine.” But Aquila Resources did not resolve these concerns. There is still NO finalized site plan or acknowledgement of planned underground mining facilities, NO approved plan to prevent leaching of toxins into the Menominee River, NO accurate hydrological model for the mine site, and the Back Forty wetland impacts remain UNKNOWN.

All Federal Objections Were Mysteriously Rescinded

“This decision is a stunning example of big-money politics taking precedence over the public good,” said Garske.

“I’d like to say I was surprised by the approval of the Back 40’s wetland permit, but actually was not,” said Deb Skubal of the Front 40. “This whole outcome is consistent with how the DEQ has operated thus far. The Director went so far as to write “the project as proposed could not be permitted without additional supporting documentation”. My conclusion: Aquila Resources has never put any effort into a serious wetland permit request, and DEQ knows it.”

“Aquila’s Wetland permit is the most inept, shoddy heap of paperwork I’ve ever seen. When the permit is held up to the light of legal scrutiny, light will shine in through a thousand holes,” said Heideman.

Environmental Groups Cry Foul: Statements on the Michigan DEQ Approval of Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit

“We’re appalled that DEQ would overrule its own experts to cater to this company. The issuance of this permit defies the law and betrays the public trust.” – Dave Dempsey, senior advisor for FLOW (For Love of Water).

“A sulfide mine on the shores of the Menominee River endangers the health and way of life of the entire region to profit a foreign owned corporation. Michigan DEQ’s approval of the wetland permit an injustice to all of us.” – Raj Shukla, Executive Director of the River Alliance of Wisconsin.

“I pray for the wild rice people while I take note of the names of each and every federal and state official approving every single aspect of this 800 foot deep open pit mine less than 100 feet from the great Menominee River. Every single one of them must be held accountable when this fails and harms the fishery, the drinking water for millions of people and more. Accountability is a predominate conservative principal. They must all be held accountable in full measure.” – Jeffery Loman of the L’Anse Indian Reservation.

“The Michigan DEQ Director has issued the Back Forty Mine’s Wetlands Permit with 31 pages of conditions ignoring the scientific recommendations of the DEQ’s water quality division, and the overwhelming public opposition to the permit!” – John Engel, Sierra Club John Muir Chapter Executive Committee at Large Member.

“The MDEQ decision is a fundamental violation of their legal responsibility under the Clean Water Act to evaluate the impact of this project on wetlands, aquatic resources and the Menominee River. MDEQ has issued a permit without the faintest idea of what the impacts may be and have entrusted Aquila with the responsibility of assessing the impacts and taking appropriate actions to prevent the adverse impacts that are prohibited by the Clean Water Act. This is the same thing as letting the mining company write their own permit without transparency or accountability to the public, the Menominee Indian Tribe or the environment.” – Al Gedicks, Executive Secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council.

“DEQ’s approval of the wetlands permit obviously ignored the opposition to this mine by thousands of people. Why were we ignored?” – Dick Dragiewicz, avid Menominee River fisherman.

“The Wisconsin Smallmouth Alliance is extremely dismayed at this blatant disregard for our pristine environment and cultural heritage.” – Jerry Pasdo, President of the Wisconsin Smallmouth Alliance.

“This certainly is not the end of our opposition; it is the resurrection of government ‘of the people, for the people, and by the people.’ We stand united with organizations all across the state of Wisconsin and Michigan, and we are in it for the long haul.” – Dale Burie, President of the Coalition to SAVE the Menominee River, Inc.

“The fact that eight Native American tribes have fought this mine should have been enough. Or the fact that the Menominee River was selected as one of the ten most endangered rivers in America. Or the amount of local opposition. An open pit mine on the edge of a river that flows directly into the Great Lakes — SWP staff can’t imagine a worse location.” – Carl Lindquist, Executive Director of Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust

“The Department of Environmental Quality’s disappointing decision represents yet another fundamental failure by the agency to safeguard Michigan’s precious water resources. We continue to see the DEQ give preference to polluting industries, in this case allowing a mining company to make fortunes while polluting the pristine waters of the Upper Peninsula. The impact of this reckless decision will be felt for generations, with negative impacts on waterways in both Michigan and Wisconsin.” – Bob Allison, deputy director at Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

“Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) and our members are extremely frustrated by DEQ’s issuance of this wetland permit. In particular we are concerned by the large and complex nature of the many extra permit conditions that the DEQ has elected to apply in this case. These additional requests appear to be an attempt to force the mining company to fix major shortcomings that should have been resolved as part of their Part 632 mining permit — including mine closure issues, groundwater modeling needs, adequate baseline data, etc. The extensive conditions of the wetland permit, alongside the basic fact the the mine site plan the company used to get their wetlands permit was completely different than the plan they used in their earlier Part 632 mining permit, suggest to us that the DEQ is simply determined to allow risky mining operations to move forward, even if their plans to protect our water resources are inadequate and flawed. If this company can protect Michigan’s precious water resources as required by law — and that is a big “if” — then the MDEQ should require them to prove it before granting them rights to dig an open-pit mine, unleash acid mine drainage, and process their ore with cyanide in this beautiful and uniquely vulnerable place.” – Chris Kolb, Michigan Environmental Council President.

Key Files
Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit, Issued 6-4-18
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/wrd-back-forty-permit-wrp011785_624647_7.pdf

Supplemental Comments on Aquila Back Forty “Wetland Augmentation Plan”, Mining Action Group, 5-31-18
http://bit.ly/Augment-Deny

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Water Resources Division, Michigan DEQ, 4-30-18
http://bit.ly/Findings-of-Fact

EPA Objection Letter, 3-8-18
http://bit.ly/EPAobjects-Back40

EPA Objects to the Issuance of Aquila Back Forty Wetland Permit, 3-15-18
http://bit.ly/EPA-Objects-to-Wetland-Permit

Acknowledgements

Technical 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 individual fishing enthusiasts throughout the Great Lakes area.

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

Red-Flag Review Finds Big Holes in Sulfide Mine’s 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), working with regional environmental allies and fishing organizations, have secured an independent red flag review of Aquila Resources’ Back Forty Wetland permit application. The review was provided by the Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP2) which analyzes mining applications and provides objective research and technical advice to communities impacted by mining.

The Wetland application includes technical information regarding wetland hydrology, direct and indirect impacts to wetlands from the proposed sulfide mine and the on-site milling operation, a compensatory wetland and stream mitigation proposal, and more.  CSP2’s technical review was completed by Dr. Kendra Zamzow (Ph.D., Environmental Geochemistry) and Dr. David Chambers (Ph.D., Geophysics).

CSP2’s report flags significant omissions in Aquila’s permit application, especially concerns related to the Feasible and Prudent (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable) Alternatives analysis, the fundamental test of any wetland permit:

  • “An environmental analysis needs to be conducted comparing the new proposed facility siting impacts on wetlands with the siting approved in the mining permit. The proposed single mine waste storage area is now two areas, and is much larger. The description of what is to be contained in each is inadequate and there is no description of the protections to be put in place.”
  • “The former site plan was discarded in part because waste would be ‘less dense’ than anticipated. There is no explanation for what is behind the anticipated change in waste material density that drove the need for the greater area required for waste disposal…”
  • “Given the terrain, direction of water flow, and proximity of valley wetlands and the River, this poses risks to wetlands – and aquatic resources in the River – that have not been analyzed.”
  • “Although there is no formal proposal for underground mining, it is reasonable and foreseeable. Therefore the full potential life of the mine should be considered when evaluating feasible and prudent alternatives that are the least damaging to wetlands.”
  • “An economic analysis needs to be conducted to determine the feasibility of moving the mill out of wetland areas.”
  • “It appears that most of the stream and wetland impacts might be avoided if the mine facilities could be moved further upland to a dryland site, possibly on other state lands.”

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 alternative, and they must show they are using all practical means to minimize impacts to wetlands. 

According to CSP2’s review, “The mining permit and wetland permit are inextricably linked. The location and size of proposed mine site facilities as presented in the November 2017 Wetland Permit Application are different from those presented in the Mining Permit Application, and pose risks to wetlands that have not been analyzed.”

“This red flag review underscores our existing concerns. Aquila’s Wetland permit application is shoddy. It is mired in untested assumptions about wetland hydrology, and the whole scheme hinges on a facility design which nobody has reviewed, much less approved,” said Kathleen Heideman, a member of MAG.

Front 40 and the Mining Action Group will deliver CSP2’s review to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the Public Hearing on January 23rd, and ask that key finding and recommendations be incorporated into the Wetland Permit review process.

“As soon as we saw the extent of the facility modifications, we asked the DEQ’s Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals to immediately require Aquila to apply for an amendment of the Back Forty Mine permit, or review the facility changes along with the Wetland permit – but they’ve refused to consider these questions until after the Wetland permit review is done,” said Heideman. [ See: “Significant Changes to Aquila Back Forty Mine” ]

“How many wetlands will be destroyed or impaired by the Back Forty? These wetlands are just in the way – Aquila will mine them out, or fill them in, or the surface water will be diverted, or they’ll be buried under mine waste tailings and waste rock storage areas. Are all of these wetland losses unavoidable? That’s the big question,” said Steve Garske, a member of MAG.

“Aquila Resources seeks to destroy wetlands in order to build a sulfide mine on the bank of the Menominee River. It is an alarming proposal, given the proximity of wetlands to the river, and concerns about the company’s plan to follow the orebody deeper underground. This site is complex, hydrologically, with wetlands on all sides, flowing in different directions. And the total wetland impacts may be significantly underestimated, since additional years of underground mining would greatly increase the groundwater drawdown,” said Heideman.

“Local residents are very frustrated, understandably. Aquila is using a bait-and-switch strategy. Since the facility’s impacts on wetlands are at the heart of the review, it would have made more sense to scrutinize all the proposed changes to the design first, before submitting the Wetland permit application. Aquila does everything backwards,” said Ron Henriksen, spokesman for the Front 40 group.

“Our goal is to identify errors and inconsistencies between data and Aquila’s predicted impacts to wetlands. We want to ensure that concerned citizens, stakeholders and environmental regulators are fully informed as to the true impacts of this permit,” said Nathan Frischkorn, a Fellow with the Mining Action Group.

A broad coalition of fishing groups, residents, tribal members and environmental groups are united in their opposition to the Aquila Back Forty project. Downstream communities are concerned about potential impacts to drinking water and tourism, and have passed resolutions against the project. Marinette County unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Back Forty; additional resolutions have been passed by the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Nation, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Midwest Alliance of Sovereign Tribes, Amberg, Peshtigo, Porterfield, Sister Bay, Wagner, the City of Marinette, Door County, Oconto County, Outagamie County, Shawano County, Menominee County, and Brown County, which includes the city of Green Bay. After concerned citizens levied significant pressure on local officials, Menominee County became the first county in Michigan to pass a resolution opposed to the Back Forty mine.

“The Menominee River is my friend. It gives me and my fishing friends a lot of excitement when those bass, especially the big ones, are seen and when they strike at our flies. The Menominee is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be damaged or destroyed, which is why I’m working to protect it from the problems the proposed Back Forty mine would cause. I don’t want to lose the river to a polluting metallic sulfide mine,” said Dick Dragiewicz, an avid fisherman.

If fully permitted, the Back Forty will be a large open-pit sulfide mine on the bank of the Menominee River, the largest watershed in the wild Upper Peninsula of Michigan, only 100 feet from the water. Milling, using cyanide and other chemicals, and mine waste will be stored at the mine site, with some tailings waste remaining permanently. Most of the rock will be “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 for hundreds or thousands of years. American Rivers named the Menominee River to their list of “America’s Most Endangered Rivers” in 2017.

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

Fundamental objections to the Aquila Back Forty project remain unresolved, and two contested case petitions have been filed over the Mining permit: one by an adjacent landowner, and another by the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The Back Forty Wetland application is now under review by the public, tribal stakeholders, environmental groups, Michigan DEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“Wetlands are strictly protected under both state and federal law. Before wetlands can be destroyed, the company must demonstrate that wetland impacts are unavoidable. They’ve failed that test. I don’t see how this permit will pass muster with environmental regulators,” said Heideman.

“This mine threatens cultural and natural resources of the Menominee people, and the Shakey Lakes Savanna, a globally unique habitat. 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 needlessly destroys wetlands,” said Horst Schmidt, president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition.

Independent review of the Aquila Back Forty Wetland permit is 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 small 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 individual fishing enthusiasts throughout the Great Lakes area.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

A Public Hearing for the Back Forty’s Wetlands, Lakes and Streams permit application will be held at 6 p.m. Central on January 23, 2018 at Stephenson High School, located at W526 Division Street, Stephenson, MI 49887. Note: due to public interest, the hearing has been moved to the school’s large gym. The deadline for submitting written comment is February 2, 2018.

####

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 Group
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 work of the Front 40 group: menomineeriver.com

ACTION ALERT – DIVEST FROM AQUILA’S BACK FORTY PROJECT!

Posted on by

TELL INVESTORS THIS PROPOSED OPEN PIT SULFIDE MINE NEXT TO THE MENOMINEE RIVER HAS NO “SOCIAL LICENSE TO OPERATE”

Aquila Resources has proposed a large open pit sulfide mine a mere 150 feet from the Menominee River (a major Lake Michigan tributary which forms the Wisconsin-Michigan border and flows into Green Bay). The mine footprint is located on the original tribal homeland of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The tribe is concerned about pollution of the Menominee River and the destruction of sacred sites.

TAKE ACTION — Send a letter to the main financial investors in the Back Forty proposed mine letting them know that this project faces growing opposition* in Wisconsin and Michigan and does not have a “social license to operate.” According to mining risk analysts like Ernst & Young, the fourth greatest risk to mining investors comes from “ignoring community voices and their environmental and public health concerns.”

Send letters to the principal investors in the Back Forty project:

Mr. Oskar Lewnowski, CIO
Orion Mine Finance Group
1121 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3000
New York, NY 10036

Candace Brule, Investor Relations
HUDBAY
25 York Street, Suite 800
Toronto, Ontario M5J 2V5
Canada
Email: investor.relations@hudbaymminerals.com

Ruffer
80 Victoria Street
London SW1E 5JL
United Kingdom

* Growing opposition as indicated by resolutions against the proposed mine by local units of government, including Marinette County, Brown County, the cities of Peshtigo and Marinette and the towns of Wagner and Porterfield in Wisconsin. Tribal governments that have passed resolutions against the mine include the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, the Bad River Ojibwe Tribe of Wisconsin, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community of Michigan, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi,the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority of Michigan. American Rivers, a national conservation organization has listed the Menominee River as one of the 10 most endangered rivers due to the threat from sulfide mining”.

As Residents Fight Back, Sulfide Mining Strikes Again: Copperwood Project

Posted on by

Submitted by Michigan LCV on Wed, 05/09/2012 – 9:18am

by Alicia Prygoski, Special Projects Associate
Although countless Michigan residents have made it clear that they don’t want their pristine natural areas decimated by sulfide mines, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) doesn’t seem to want to listen.

In the same week that the Huron Mountain Club has made headway in opposing the ever-controversial Kennecott Eagle Mine, the DEQ has gone ahead and unleashed another sulfide mine on the Upper Peninsula, giving mining companies the right-of-way instead of considering the voices of the citizens who live there. Continue reading →