MDEQ to hold public meeting on Humboldt Mill permit amendment request Nov. 27

Outflow from Humboldt Mill basin. (Photo © Jeremiah Eagle Eye and courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve)

MARQUETTE -- The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Oil, Gas, and Minerals Division, will hold a public meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 27, 2017, at the Westwood High School auditorium, 300 Westwood Drive, Ishpeming, Michigan 49849, regarding Lundin Mining’s request to amend their Humboldt Mill Mining Permit MP 01 2010, issued under Part 632, Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. The public comment period will follow the meeting through 5 p.m., Dec. 26, 2017.

Lundin is requesting approval to place tailings to a higher elevation in the Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility than currently permitted. The MDEQ has determined that the request constitutes a significant change from the conditions of the approved mine permit, and as such the review of the request will proceed as for a new permit application.
 
The purpose of the meeting is for MDEQ to (1) notify the public that an amendment request is under review and how to access relevant documents (2) provide information regarding the review process and how to submit comments, and (3) receive questions and comments from the public for the MDEQ to consider prior to making a proposed decision.

Written comments will be accepted at the meeting, and until 5 p.m. Dec. 26, 2017. Mail comments to DEQ Humboldt Mill Amendment Request, Oil, Gas, and Minerals Division, 1504 West Washington Street, Marquette, MI 49855, or E-mail comments to the designated MDEQ mailbox at DEQ: Mining-Comments@michigan.gov, including "Humboldt Mill Amendment Request" as the subject.

The Humboldt Mill Amendment Request document is located on the following DEQ web page:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/deq-ogmd-mining-Eagle_Mine_Humboldt_Mill_Part_632_Amendment_Request_-_Condition_F4_595910_7.pdf 

Documents related to the Humboldt Mill Mining Permit are located on the following web pages: 

Mining Permit MP 01 2010: 
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Kennecott_Humboldt_Mining_Permit_387350_7.pdf

Environmental Impact Assessment:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ_FTP_372266_7.pdf 

Nonferrous Metallic Mining Website: 
http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,4561,7-135-3311_18442-359902--,00.html

Individuals needing accommodations for effective participation at the hearing should contact Tina Coluccio, 906-228-4524 one week in advance of the hearing date to request mobility, visual, hearing, or other assistance.

Citizens question DEQ's wastewater discharge permit for Eagle Mine's Humboldt Mill; deadline for comments is Aug. 3

By Michele Bourdieu

This aerial view shows the outfalls of discharge from the Humboldt Pit (Eagle Mine's Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility) and the proposed (pink) flow path through wetlands and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River. 1 = Outfall 001; 2 = Outfall 002; 3 = (proposed) Outfall 003; 4 = Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank, Phase 1 South; 5 = Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility (pit); * = asterisks indicate Middle Branch of the Escanaba River. (Photo courtesy Save the Wild U.P.)

MARQUETTE -- Eagle Mine's Humboldt Mill near Champion, Mich. -- the facility Eagle uses to process ore from the mine near Big Bay into separate nickel and copper concentrates -- is a subject of controversy because of environmental concerns over the permitting process that allows treated or untreated wastewater from the mill to be discharged into wetlands and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River (MBER).

This photo shows the Humboldt Mill, where Lundin Mining Co., now owner of the Eagle Mine, processes ore from the mine into nickel and copper concentrates. The wastewater from the mill goes into the Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility (HTDF), aka, the Humboldt Pit (upper left of photo) and then through a water treatment plant (if necessary) and to two Outfalls, with a third Outfall proposed, that lead through wetlands to the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River (see above map). (File photo courtesy Eagle Mine)

While the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) claims the outfalls from the Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility (HTDF), aka, the Humboldt Pit, carry the discharge, totaling up to 1.4 million gallons per day, through wetlands (classified as warm water) before reaching the river, Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP) claims at least one of the outfalls, Outfall 002, empties directly into the river, a cold-water trout stream; and, most recently, SWUP questions the path of the discharge from the newly proposed Outfall 003 -- through a wetland mitigation bank and into the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River.

SWUP is a grassroots environmental nonprofit based in Marquette and dedicated to protecting the wild lands and freshwater resources of the Upper Peninsula.

Public comment on the modified NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit can be received up to Aug. 3, 2015.*

MDEQ announces NPDES permit modification

On July 2, 2015, the MDEQ released a draft wastewater discharge permit modification for Eagle Mine’s Humboldt Mill. On April 7, 2015, the MDEQ had issued the mill an NPDES permit which included a requirement for a hydrological study to determine the best location and discharge strategy to protect the integrity of downstream wetlands. That requirement originated after a Jan. 13, 2015, public meeting where attendees expressed concern about potential impacts to wetland hydrology.

"The permit that we issued on April 7 required Eagle to do a study to monitor the impact of the Humboldt Pit discharge on water levels in wetlands between the Humboldt Pit and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River," said Steve Casey, MDEQ Water Division Upper Peninsula District supervisor. "Part of the study was to evaluate establishing a new outfall at the location of the post-closure water release. That location is 530 feet west of the original outfall (of the permit). In order to best conduct that study they've requested a modification of their permit so they can discharge at the post-closure location now."

The MDEQ processed Eagle's request, and the draft permit contains the same limitations on flows and water quality as the April 7 permit. The only change to the permit is to add a new outfall location -- Outfall 003.

This is stated in the Public Notice for the permit (NPDES Permit No. MI0058649) as follows:

"The draft permit includes the following modifications to the previously-issued permit: 
A new Outfall 003 has been added, which will authorize the discharge of wastewaters (identical to Outfalls 001 and 002) through a pipeline to the wetland contiguous to the Middle Branch Escanaba River. Outfall 003 has been proposed in accordance with the original permit’s requirements in Part I.A.4.b. The new outfall (003) will share the flow restrictions with Outfalls 001 and 002, as outlined in Part I.A.1 and Part I.A.1.j, and does not authorize any additional flow. Upon modification, this permit will supersede Certificate of Coverage No. MIS210034, issued August 15, 2012."

"The discharge goes to the same wetland complex," Casey explained. "It's the location where the Humboldt Pit discharged after it filled up 40 years ago."

SWUP concerned about Outfalls 002 and 003

In a letter to EPA (the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) dated May 6, 2015, SWUP petitioned the EPA to veto the NPDES permit issued on April 7 by the MDEQ, acting under delegated authority from EPA Region 5, on the basis that inadequacies of the permit violate the Clean Water Act.

"In response to public comment, the MDEQ made changes to the original draft permit brought forward by Eagle Mine but failed to resolve numerous and serious issues related to a new outfall (Outfall 002) discharging wastewater which degrades water quality in the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River," the letter states.

The letter questions the location of Outfall 002, which, SWUP claims, "was not studied during the Humboldt Mill EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), and remains unassessed."

This aerial photo, taken July 9, 2015, shows the location of Outfall 002 -- marked by a yellow X in the center of the photo. Click on photo for larger version. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

In response to public comments made before the April 7 permit, MDEQ defined the location of Outfall 002 as follows: "The pipeline for Outfall 002 will discharge to an area upgradient of the wetland adjacent to the Middle Branch Escanaba River (MBER). Flow dissipation will be accomplished in an approximately 40-foot length rip-rap apron, which slopes down to the wetland fringe to promote a slow, gradual entry of water into the wetland. This design also intended to allow some natural infiltration into the sandy outfall and to limit or eliminate transport of sediment into and through the wetland. The distance from the wetland fringe to the bank of MBER is about 150 feet depending on stage of the river."*

In the letter to EPA, SWUP further questions MDEQ's calling the discharge receiving water a wetland:

"Temporarily setting aside critical concerns about preemptive construction and flawed design of Outfall 002, it is simply a gross manipulation to call Outfall 002 a 'wetland discharge' in order to utilize warm-water aquatic values and wetland hardness and pH values, thus allowing higher parameter limits for heavy metals in effluent discharge. Discharges from Outfall 002 into the riverbed receive no ameliorating or assimilating benefit, as would occur in a true wetland; it is an error of fact and judgement to term Outfall 002 either a 'wetland discharge' or a 'warm-water wetland' discharge. During our most recent visit to Outfall 002, in mid-April 2015, discharges from Outfall 002 were observed flowing directly into and merging with river currents."

Outfall 002 is pictured here, with discharge from the Humboldt Pit appearing to flow into the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River. Technically, it is described as passing through wetlands, depending on the seasonal flow of the river. (May 2015 photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

Kristen Mariuzza, Eagle Mine manager for Environment, Health and Safety, replying to questions from Keweenaw Now, said, "Outfall 001 and Outfall 002 both discharge to wetlands that are contiguous to the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River. Outfall 002 discharges to the wetland that is located several hundred feet from the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River."

Mariuzza also said the discharge is coming from the Humboldt Water Treatment Plant.

"Tailings from the Mill are sub-aqueously disposed in the pit and process water is treated by the water treatment plant before being recycled to the environment," she explained.

Kristen Mariuzza, Eagle Mine manager for Environment, Health and Safety, replies to questions from Big Bay residents, including Gene Champagne, right, during the May 19, 2015, Eagle Mine community meeting in Big Bay. The meeting allowed the public to meet individually with Eagle Mine staff members and ask about their concerns. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)

Save the Wild U.P. also questions the purpose of Outfall 003 and challenges the April 7 NPDES permit for several reasons, noting their concerns expressed at the Jan. 13, 2015, public hearing have not been sufficiently addressed, even though the MDEQ public notice on Outfall 003 states it is in response to hydrology concerns expressed at that public hearing.

SWUP questions discharge through Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank

In a July 23 press release, SWUP cites some public concerns that have not been addressed by the modified permit.

"Citizens remain deeply critical of the MDEQ’s previous permitting decision, allowing degradation of the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River. We asked EPA Region 5 to veto that NPDES permit, in fact, because it was so deeply flawed," said SWUP President Kathleen Heideman. "Now they’re already revising it. Adding a third discharge point does not address citizen concerns about environmental degradation. The pollution remains unchanged. MDEQ is supposed to be protecting the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River as a coldwater trout stream."

According to Casey, though, the NPDES permit limits protect both the wetlands and the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River.

"Limits listed in the permit -- for both metals and other pollutants -- are protective of both wetlands and the cold-water river," Casey told Keweenaw Now in a phone conversation on July 15. "We put a hydrological study requirement in the permit to be sure Eagle's discharge protects the hydrological integrity of downstream wetlands -- both natural and created."

The "created" wetlands are those of the Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank north of U.S. 41. According to Casey, Outfall 002 is intended to alleviate concerns of this Wetland Mitigation Bank, owned by A. Lindberg and Sons. Originally the groundwater under the created wetlands was too high. It would back up if too much water was being pumped from the original Outfall, Casey explained. The revised permit limits total discharge from the Humboldt Pit to 1.4 million gallons per day.

"If the water in the pit meets all the limits in the permit, they can discharge a total of 1.4 million gallons per day divided among the three outfalls without using the water treatment plant," Casey said. (The water treatment plant -- using an ultra filtration method -- is only required if the water in the pit exceeds permit limits.)

However, the path of the wastewater is still troubling to SWUP. They claim the addition of Outfall 003 would divert a portion of the mill’s wastewater to a new location, dumping it into a poor-quality cattail wetland adjacent to the Humboldt Pit, a site already polluted by historic mine tailings discharge. From there, the wastewater will flow north, passing underneath US-41 through a culvert before entering the Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank property, en route to the Escanaba river.

"Wetland mitigation banks are supposed to replace functional wetlands destroyed by development. Owners of such banks are given credit for restoring functional wetlands. I find it incredible that this mitigation bank will be allowed to receive wastewater from the Humboldt Mill," said Gail Griffith, emeritus professor of chemistry at Northern Michigan University and SWUP board member.

SWUP finds MDEQ's statement that Outfalls 001 and 003 "discharge to the same wetland" to be oversimplified since the route taken by the wastewater will be strikingly different.

"Wastewaters discharged from Outfall 003 would enter the Middle Branch of the Escanaba River at a location at least a mile upstream from Outfall 001 (See above SWUP map). In short, Eagle Mine’s total environmental footprint is expanding again," said Alexandra Maxwell, SWUP’s interim director.

Heideman adds she finds the discharge into the Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank very unusual.

"I spoke to a staffer from Michigan’s Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, someone familiar with NPDES permitting requirements and regulations concerning wetlands preservation, and they could not think of another situation in which a wetland mitigation bank would be allowed to intentionally receive wastewater discharges from a mine’s tailings facility," Heideman said. "Mitigation banks are required to be protected from contaminants, reviewed for biological integrity, and maintained in perpetuity. Anything less would be contrary to the administrative code which governs wetland mitigation banking."

Marquette attorney Jana Mathieu noted, "Humboldt Mill’s NPDES permit authorizes discharges that will, in the short term, degrade water quality in the Escanaba watershed. But it would be manifestly unreasonable, and clearly contrary to Michigan law, for the MDEQ to allow these industrial wastewaters to enter a state-registered wetland mitigation bank."

Poster of Humboldt Mill processing on display at the May 19, 2015, Eagle Mine community meeting held in Big Bay. The right lower photo shows part of the Humboldt Pit (Humboldt Tailings Disposal Facility) The middle of the three photos above shows equipment for separating the nickel and copper. "We sink the nickel and float the copper," said Jeff Murray, mill site manager. Murray also noted the water is recycled as much as possible, with some water coming from the pit. The final, dried nickel and copper concentrates are shipped to Canada by rail for further processing. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)

Steve Garske, botanist and SWUP board member, also questioned the quality of the wetland mitigation bank.

"I can't believe the laws (regulating wetland mitigation banks) intended for the landowner to dig out sand and gravel for commercial sale; let the hole fill with water -- including contaminated water seeping from an old tailings basin and wastewater discharges from the processing of copper-nickel-sulfide ore at Humboldt Mill; let whatever aggressive, weedy invasive plants that are around move in; put up 'no trespassing' signs; and call it wetland mitigation. Is anybody monitoring this? Something's gotta be wrong."

Save the Wild U.P. requested a site visit to review the Humboldt Wetland Mitigation Bank, but has received no response from the bank’s sponsor, A. Lindberg and Sons, who designed the proposed Outfall 003; MDEQ’s Water Resources Division declined to facilitate the site visit, according to SWUP. **

Since January, no public hearing has been scheduled for the NPDES permit. SWUP encourages concerned citizens to submit written comments, or request a public hearing for further review of this proposed permit modification and related environmental impacts.*

"Mine permitting keeps getting streamlined for the benefit of industry, while concerned citizens find the process time-consuming and opaque," Maxwell added. "Before the ink is dry on a permit, it is being revised, with additional loopholes and leniencies inserted. It is up to concerned citizens to follow every revision, ask questions, and loudly demand that due process be followed."

After taking a June 19 public tour of the Humboldt Mill, Horst Schmidt, a resident of Tamarack City, said he had questions about the water in the pit that weren't answered.

"Although Lundin runs an efficient operation, they are dumping the tailings into the old Humboldt open mine pit which is now a lake," Schmidt said. "Unless it's sealed, how can we know what is leaching through fractures into the aquifer? When the staff or Dan Blondeau, Lundin's local PR man, are asked questions beyond the soft ones, one gets non sequiturs from them about operational details."

According to Eagle Mine's Mariuzza, "The purpose of Outfall 003 is two-fold: first, it meets the permit requirement to establish an outfall at the post closure water release location; and, second, it allows for better water distribution and ensures the historical viability of the entire wetland is maintained."

After several calls to EPA Region 5, Keweenaw Now received this reply concerning the petition from SWUP: "EPA is in the process of reviewing a proposed modification to a state permit issued to the Humboldt Mill tailing disposal facility in Champion, Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality proposed the modification on July 2. EPA has received the petition from Save the Wild UP relating to this permit modification and it is being reviewed."

Mariuzza said she believed EPA did comment on the NPDES permit but she did not have details of those comments.

Asked whether Lundin is working on the hydrology study, Mariuzza said, "A work plan for the hydrologic study was submitted to the MDEQ in late May. The actual study will commence in late summer/early fall. The study will include determining impacts of discharges from Outfall 001 and Outfall 003, if approved for construction."***

Notes:

* Click here to access the permit, a fact sheet and the DEQ's responsiveness summary (responses to earlier comments). New comments can be sent to Samuel Snow at snows2@michigan.gov before midnight, Aug. 3, 2015.

** Click here for the full SWUP press release. Keweenaw Now left messages for A. Lindberg and Sons, but did not receive a reply for this article.

*** Replies to Keweenaw Now's questions to Kristen Mariuzza were relayed to us by Dan Blondeau, Eagle Mine senior advisor in Communications and Media Relations.

Marquette County Board, residents, environmental groups oppose Road Commission vote to sue EPA over CR 595; lawsuit funding sources undisclosed

By Michele Bourdieu

Members of the Marquette County Road Commission return from a closed session discussion of their proposed lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency during their Jan. 19, 2015, meeting in the Marquette Township Hall in Marquette. (Photos by Gene Champagne for Keweenaw Now)

MARQUETTE -- Two years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to remove their objections to the proposed Marquette County Road 595 and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) did not issue a permit for it. If built as a haul road for the Eagle Mine, it would have impacted quality wetlands and streams according to the EPA. Since then Eagle Mine has spent about $50 million improving existing roads and bridges in Marquette County and uses an approved route to haul ore from the Eagle Mine to the mill in Humboldt.

After a closed-session discussion held during their Jan. 19, 2015, meeting, the Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) voted on a resolution to sue the EPA for what the MCRC calls the federal agency's "arbitrary and capricious decision" in objecting to the permit for CR 595. The resolution states public funds will not be used for the lawsuit, but the Road Commission would not reveal the source of private funding for the lawsuit, estimated at $500,000. This refusal to disclose funding sources led to a 3-2 vote of the Marquette County Board of Commissioners objecting to the proposed lawsuit at their own meeting the following evening, Jan. 20.

On Wednesday, Jan. 21, at a Marquette County Township's Association meeting in Negaunee Township, representatives of about half of the 19 townships voted to support the Road Commission's resolution.

Environmental groups oppose CR 595, lawsuit

The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP) has expressed strong opposition to the potential construction of County Road 595 and the Road Commission's projected lawsuit.

"Our misguided local road commission’s agenda does not serve the needs of citizens, only corporations and agencies who profit from this excess development at whatever cost," YDWP states on their Web site in a Jan. 26, 2015, article. "The estimated cost to construct CR595 has risen to $100 million for infrastructure that will cross 21 miles of partially hydric and hydric soil types, wildlife corridors, isolated waterways, and wetland headwaters for several major watersheds in Marquette County."*

This wetland in the proposed CR 595 corridor is one of many sensitive areas that would be impacted if the road is built. (Keweenaw Now file photo © and courtesy Jessica Koski)

On July 8, 2014, Save the Wild U.P. posted photos of bulldozing and road construction along the previously defeated CR 595 route -- at the remote headwaters of the Mulligan Creek.

"Construction along this route included multiple instances of wetlands impacts, including unpermitted culvert installation and wetlands dredging and filling, with no evidence of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit -- a permit required by law to alter or destroy wetlands during the permitting review of the CR 595 proposal," SWUP stated in the article.**

Today Alexandra Maxwell, SWUP interim director, confirmed that article is still accurate and construction continued after July 2014.

Trees, stumps, and dirt bulldozed illegally into wetlands of Mulligan Creek. (Photo  © Kathleen Heideman and courtesy Save the Wild U.P.)

"SWUP led a hike along snowmobile trail 5 through the Mulligan Plains in September and construction had continued," Maxwell said.

Public comments for, against lawsuit resolution

Before and after the closed session at the MCRC meeting, local residents spoke both in opposition and in support of the Road Commission's potential lawsuit.

Marquette County District 2 Commissioner and former Humboldt Township Supervisor Joe Derocha, who attended all three meetings, said he and his township had supported CR 595 in the past but now, as a County commissioner, he is not supportive of the Road Commission's proposed lawsuit against the EPA.

Joe Derocha, Marquette County commissioner and former Humboldt Township supervisor (standing), addresses the Marquette County Road Commission before their closed session during their Jan. 19 meeting. Derocha stated his objections to the proposed lawsuit against the EPA, partly because of potential negative effects it could have on the EPA's present review of Humboldt Mill as a potential Superfund site. He also expressed his view that this issue should be discussed at an open public forum. 

Derocha explained his position to Keweenaw Now.

"We (Humboldt Township, when he was supervisor) fully supported the 595 permit effort and, with broad local community support for the road, we failed to acquire a permit to build the 595. It would have created many jobs and a direct link to Humboldt Township," Derocha said. "The EPA ruled and the State (DEQ) did not issue the permit. That didn't make us happy, but we have to accept it."

Derocha said he believes this is a politically driven issue.

"I am not supportive of a lawsuit against the EPA, and I feel the Road Commission has not taken into consideration the unforeseen consequences that may occur that would directly affect Marquette County and its residents," Derocha noted. "Senator Casperson and staff have lobbied the Road Commission to make this happen. He's put together a private fund of undisclosed investors."

While CR 595 was intended to be a haul road for the Eagle Mine, Lundin Mining Co., the present owner, has not stated any support for the lawsuit or interest in funding it or the building of CR 595.

"We are neither for nor against the MCRC’s decision," said Dan Blondeau, Eagle Mine senior advisor, Communications and Media Relations. "For now, our operations are dependent upon current infrastructure and our role in keeping that infrastructure sound."

Blondeau also confirmed for Keweenaw Now that Eagle Mine, as stated recently in the Marquette Mining Journal, "would not contribute to funding the lawsuit nor toward building the road should the permits be issued."

Jon Saari, Save the Wild U.P. vice president and Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC) treasurer, commented at the meeting that the lawsuit might not necessarily result in 595 being built. He said the road and the lawsuit are different issues and the MCRC should think about the deeper issue of the real motives for the lawsuit, where the money is coming from and why this lawsuit is of national interest.

Mary Ellen Krieg of Big Bay pointed out that what the EPA did was not unusual, since the permit application was insufficient, and the Road Commission, if they go ahead with the lawsuit, will probably have a hard time proving what the EPA did in Marquette County was not different from what they have done in other places. She also stated her objection to the MCRC spending the County's time and resources for this effort, even if they don't use public funds for the actual lawsuit.

This map, displayed at the Aug. 28, 2012, EPA public hearing on CR 595, shows the Marquette County Road Commission's proposed CR 595 (green route) and two alternative routes preferred by the EPA -- Mulligan Plains East/Sleepy Hollow (brown route) and Red Road/Sleepy Hollow (red route). (Keweenaw Now file photo)***

Joyce Iwinski of Big Bay asked the MCRC, "Who actually is funding this lawsuit?"

She did not receive an answer from the road commissioners.

Iwinski added she was appalled by the MCRC’s disregard for the environment and for her, since she relies on the EPA for environmental protection.

Mike Thibault of Ishpeming urged the MCRC to go forward with the lawsuit:

At the Jan. 19 meeting of the Marquette County Road Commission, Mike Thibault of Gwinn expresses his support for the Road Commission's intention to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for not removing their objections to the building of County Road 595 in 2013. (Videos by Gene Champagne for Keweenaw Now.)

Gene Champagne of Big Bay told the MCRC board it should consider itself lucky, along with the County Board, that it wasn’t prosecuted for filing a fraudulent permit. He noted they were opening themselves up to the possibility of taxpayer counter lawsuits.

"This issue is going to be a distraction from what your job is -- and that's maintaining our county roads, which are in very bad condition," Champagne said. "Transparency -- where's the money coming from?"

Champagne said he would like to see an alternative route but it needs to be done another way, not through this lawsuit.

"The mining company needs to file it under their permit -- and it still stands today, if it wasn't for Eagle Mine, we wouldn't be having this discussion here," Champagne noted.

The MCRC Board then went into a closed session "to consider written attorney-client communications exempt from disclosure under MCL 15.243 (1)(g) as allowed by MCL 15.268(h)" and emerged after a considerable amount of time with a resolution to sue the EPA. Here Dave Hall, MCRC Board chair, reads the resolution:

After a closed-session discussion during the Jan. 19, 2015, Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) meeting, David Hall, MCRC chair, reads a resolution to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for not removing their objections to the proposed County Road 595 in 2013, thus preventing permitting of the road, intended at that time to be a haul road for the Eagle Mine. See UPDATE below.

The Road Commissioners voted unanimously to approve the resolution, and a second public comment period followed.

William Malmsten of Marquette Township and UPEC said he could see no need for this road, even if it were permitted, since mining operations would be half over by the time it could be built. He expressed concerns about the source of the funding and Sen. Casperson's political agenda in pushing for the lawsuit.

Carla Champagne and Joyce Iwinski, both of Big Bay, then expressed strong concerns about the MCRC's refusal to reveal the sources of private funding:

Following the reading of the Marquette County Road Commission's resolution to sue the EPA for objecting to the building of County Road 595, two residents of Big Bay -- Carla Champagne and Joyce Iwinski -- offer reasons for their opposition to the proposed lawsuit. 

Catherine Parker of Marquette reminded the MCRC Board that DEQ and DNR (Department of Natural Resources) staff had told them some areas on the 595 route were too sensitive for road building. On the other hand, Mike Nelson of Ishpeming told the MCRC to "go for it," and put people’s lives ahead of everything else, citing recent accidents involving Lundin’s ore trucks.

Catherine Parker of Marquette and Mike Nelson of Ishpeming, Mich., express opposing views on the Marquette County Road Commission's resolution to sue the EPA for their objections to permitting the proposed County Road 595 in 2013.

In an email to concerned citizens, Parker added, "Casperson is attempting to alter the Michigan constitution to allow interest and earnings from the Natural Resources Trust Fund to be used for infrastructure directly related to natural-resource-based industries, including timber harvesting and mining."****

Keweenaw Now was unable to reach MCRC Chair Dave Hall, but we received a written public statement from him in which he indicates the lawsuit is intended to allow building CR 595 "while ensuring that no County taxpayer dollars will be spent at any point in the legal process."

The statement says County Road 595 has wide support from many community groups. While Hall bases the MCRC's resolution for the lawsuit on this "broad and overwhelming support," he does not mention any funding for CR 595. The private funding, with no sources identified, appears to be only for the lawsuit.

"Based on the diverse and overwhelming expressions of community support we continue to receive, the Commission is optimistic that private funds will be sufficiently raised to cover all the expenses of any legal process, without costing taxpayers one dime. The vote to move forward with the legal process is contingent on the availability of these private funds," Hall writes. See UPDATE below.

Marquette County Board of Commissioners votes against MCRC lawsuit resolution

On Jan. 20, at their regular monthly meeting, the Marquette County Board of Commissioners considered the Road Commission resolution to sue the EPA as a late addition to their agenda.

County Commissioner Karen Alholm (6th District) told Keweenaw Now she added the lawsuit resolution to the County Board's agenda in order to clear up a misunderstanding about her position on the issue.

"The reason I brought it up at the County Board meeting is that I was told, and I verified, that the Road Commission was under the impression I was in favor of the lawsuit," Alholm said. "My position had been misstated to the Road Commission and I wanted to correct it."

Alholm noted she was generally in favor of CR 595 because she considered it shorter and safer, but she is aware of the wetland situation and opposes the lawsuit.

"I oppose the lawsuit because the funding sources for the lawsuit have not been divulged and that lack of divulgence is contrary to my belief in governmental transparency," Alholm said. "If there is a lawsuit, the court will decide the merits of the case."

At the County Board meeting, Commissioner Derocha spoke again about the need for transparency by the Road Commission concerning the undisclosed funding sources.

County Board Chair Gerald Corkin (District 4) told Keweenaw Now that Sen. Casperson and his aide, Marty Fittante, "have been drumming up support in Marquette County over the past year to sue the EPA over the 595 ruling."

Corkin said he also had supported CR 595 in the past when Rio Tinto (owner of the Eagle Mine at the time) was going to fund building the road.

"When it wasn't permitted they spent a good amount of that money to upgrade the existing roads in Marquette County," Corkin explained. "I don't support taking transportation funds to build a road for the mining company when U.S. 41, the busiest road in Marquette County, is rough and falling apart."

Commissioners Alholm, Derocha and Corkin voted "Aye" on a County Board motion not to support the lawsuit against the EPA because of the lack of divulgence of the funding sources to the public. Commissioners Bruce Heikkila (District 3) and Bill Nordeen (District 5), who supported the proposed lawsuit, voted "Nay." Commissioner Johnny DePetro (District 1) was absent and excused. The motion passed 3-2.

Corkin told Keweenaw Now, however, that the County Board motion doesn't override the MCRC's resolution to sue the EPA. The County Board appoints the Road Commission members, but the MCRC is independent.

"It's not very smart on their part," Corkin said of the MCRC resolution to sue the EPA.

Corkin added the County Board is planning to invite the MCRC to a meeting in order to ask them for full disclosure of who is funding this lawsuit. At present the date for the meeting has not been set, but it would possibly be during the week of Feb. 9, between the next two County Board meetings. It would be open to the public.

The next meeting of the Marquette Board of Commissioners will be held at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 3, in Room 231 of the Henry A. Skewis Courthouse Annex, Marquette.

Marquette County Townships Association members support MCRC resolution

The Marquette County Townships Association (MCTA) met on Wednesday, Jan. 21.

According to Jackie Koski, MCTA secretary, the MCRC resolution to sue the EPA was not on the MCTA agenda but came up during public comment and a discussion among the township representatives who were present. About 20 people were present, representing 9 or 10 of the 19 Marquette County townships.

Koski said the MCRC resolution was approved in a vote by the township representatives, but without a roll call.

"I think it should have been a roll call vote," Koski told Keweenaw Now.

She has contacted the townships and requested that the resolution be put on the agenda for the next MCTA meeting, scheduled for Feb. 25, when they may have a roll call vote on it. Koski is also asking all the townships to discuss the resolution at their individual meetings.

State legislators show support for CR 595 in TV interview

On Dec. 26, 2014, Upper Michigan's Source (TV6) published an interview with local U.P. state legislators -- Sen. Tom Casperson (R), 38th District; Rep. John Kivela (D), 109th District; Rep. Scott Dianda (D), 110th District; and Ed Mc Broom (R), 108th District -- on the subject of CR 595. All four expressed their support for CR 595.*****

Notes:

* Click here to read the Jan. 26, 2015, article on the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Web site.

** See the July 8, 2014, Save the Wild U.P. article with photos of road construction near Mulligan Creek.

*** For background on the CR 595 permit application, see our two articles on the Aug. 28, 2012, EPA Public Hearing on CR 595, including many public questions and comments on both sides of the issue: EPA Hearing on CR 595 permit: Part 1, Questions and EPA Hearing on CR 595: Part 2: Comments.

**** Click here to see Senate Bill No. 16, introduced by State Sen. Tom Casperson (R), 38th District, on Jan. 20, 2015.
Click here for Senate Joint Resolution C, also introduced by Sen. Casperson on Jan. 20, 2015.

***** See the Dec. 26, 2015, TV6 article and video, "State lawmakers discuss future of County Road 595."  Click here for the complete interview.

UPDATE: The Marquette County Road Commission's Jan. 19, 2015 resolution to sue the EPA and MCRC Board Chair Dave Hall's public statement are posted on their Web site. Click here for the text.

Joe Derocha, Democratic candidate for Marquette County Commission, to hold Campaign Kick-Off event June 19

Humboldt Township Supervisor Joe Derocha points out the multi-volume permit (on top shelf) that will allow Lundin Mining (who purchased the Eagle Mine from Rio Tinto) to process ore from the Eagle Mine at the Humboldt Mill. Derocha is now running as the Democratic candidate for Marquette County Commission District 2. (Keweenaw Now file photo)

NEGAUNEE, Mich. -- Joe Derocha, Humboldt Township supervisor, is the Democratic candidate for Marquette County Commission District 2, which includes the townships of Negaunee, Ishpeming, Ely, Humboldt, Republic, Champion and Michigamme. He invites supporters to attend a Campaign Kick-Off Event from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2014, at Derocha's 41 Steak House, 5 miles west of Ishpeming on US 41.

Donation/Tickets are $20 at the door. Food, beverages and live entertainment will be provided.*

Derocha is unopposed in the Aug. 5 Democratic Primary Election. In the November 4, 2014, general election he will run against Republican Justin Carlson.

A lifelong resident of Marquette County and a local business owner, Derocha has years of experience working with the County Board on issues critical to Marquette County and District 2 in particular. As supervisor of Humboldt Township since 2008, he has been involved with the community in several ways.

Since taking office, Derocha has donated his time and a portion of his supervisor’s salary to create a pantry that serves a free monthly community lunch open to all residents. He has worked with local residents and officials at all levels of government (township, county, state and federal) to improve the economic conditions, enhance job creation opportunities, and improve the quality of services to the residents of Marquette County.

The hallmarks of his vision, Derocha says, are "job creation, environmental stewardship, and enhancing the quality of life of [my] constituents in District 2."

Derocha has worked with the EPA, DNR, and DEQ on numerous environmental remediation issues in the industrial district known as the Humboldt Mill Project. (The Mill, when completed, is destined to be used for processing ore from the Eagle Mine near Big Bay, Mich. -- scheduled to begin production later this year.) He also led the effort to reactivate an abandoned rail corridor serving the Humboldt Mill. Derocha has followed the mill project closely and has expressed his concern that the local environment be protected. In addition, he established dialogue with the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community recognizing and respecting their ceded territory.

Derocha was an instrumental part of the Marquette County negotiating team for the non-ferrous mining severance tax in Lansing. Because of his efforts local units of government and the Republic-Michigamme and the local NICE school districts have benefited greatly.**

"I am a local guy," Derocha notes. "I know this place and the people and they know me. As a Marquette County Commissioner I will keep fighting to do good things for the economy and our way of life in this place that we call home."

Editor's Notes:
* This campaign event is hosted by the Committee to Elect Joseph Derocha, 12 Krooks Road, Negaunee, MI 49866.

** See our Dec. 1, 2012, article,"Updated: County, township officials oppose Huuki's mining severance tax bills" on the severance tax and the Humboldt Mill.

DEQ Air Quality Division to hold public hearing on Eagle Mine's proposed modifications for Humboldt Mill Dec. 17

MARQUETTE -- The Air Quality Division (AQD) of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality will hold an informational session and a public hearing on Eagle Mine LLC's proposed modifications at the Humboldt Mill tomorrow, Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2013, at Westwood High School Auditorium, 300 Westwood Drive in Ishpeming.

The informational session will be from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m., and the public hearing will begin at 7 p.m.

The proposed modifications allow general building ventilation for the Coarse Ore Storage Building and the Concentrate Loadout Building and an increase in the annual ore throughout. The facility is located at 4547 County Road 601, Champion, Humboldt Township.

During the informational session AQD staff will provide a brief introduction regarding the proposed project and will be available to answer questions. The sole purpose of the public hearing will be to take formal testimony on the record.

The public comment period is extended to the end of the hearing on Dec. 17. To submit comments on line, click here and go to Eagle Mine LLC - Permit to Install Application No. 405-08A. Click on links to information and on Submit Comment.

Click here for the public notice on the public comment period and hearing.