Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve to hold 23rd Annual Meeting and Celebration Nov.7

Poster announcing the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Nov. 7 in Marquette. (Poster courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve)

MARQUETTE -- Join the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 7, at the Ore Dock Brewing Company in Marquette for an evening of celebration, education, and fundraising. This year marks the group’s 23rd anniversary, and each year they host a meeting of the membership to let supporters know of their activities and organizational changes and to elect individuals to the Board of Directors.

Also this year the group is helping the National Park Service celebrate the 50th anniversary of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. During the evening, there will be a short presentation of this historic piece of legislation that has helped save rivers across the country. In addition, the unveiling of the Yellow Dog River Story Map will occur. A Story Map is an innovative multimedia tool that can be used to raise awareness for topics like the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

While you are at the event, check out the silent auction -- which is focusing on providing outdoor experiences as well as offering artwork, gift certificates, and gear as fundraising items. Help yourself to light refreshments and great Ore Dock beer as you jam out to the music of Everything Under the Sun. This local band prides themselves on performing a different show every time and focusing on stage presence, flawless sound, and genuine care for the crowd's desire with a wide variety of music.

There is a suggested $5 donation at the door to help cover expenses. The door donation gets you an entry into a drawing for door prizes like a brand new Patagonia backpack and other sweet goodies. Questions contact 906-345-9223 or ydwp@yellowdogwatershed.org.

For more information on the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve and their work, visit their Web site.

County Road 595 Appeal concludes

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

By Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve
Posted on their Web site March 23, 2018*
Reprinted here with permission.

MARQUETTE -- The battle between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Marquette County Road Commission concluded on March 20th in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court over County Road 595, the proposed road leading from Eagle Mine to Humboldt Mill. For those who need a refresher, the permit for CR 595 was submitted to the MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) in 2012 and as part of the review process, the U.S. EPA issued objections to the project based on the Clean Water Act. Long story short, the MDEQ did not issue the permit and the process then transferred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Road Commission then decided to file suit against the U.S. EPA with the crux of the lawsuit over the their perception that the EPA’s objections were "arbitrary and capricious" and that they "exceeded their authority" in the process. After review in District court, it was determined that the court cannot even decide on the case because, according to the Administrative Procedures Act, you cannot bring suit against a decision unless it is considered a "final agency decision." The case was dismissed.

The Road Commission then teamed up with a lobbying group called Pacific Legal Fund, who paint themselves as the champions of the little guy against the Goliath of government. They decided to appeal the decision. Oral argument transpired in Circuit court, from which you can read transcripts thanks to journalist Louis Galdieri.** Ultimately Circuit court agreed and affirmed the District court’s decision. The EPA’s objections were not final agency decisions and therefore not reviewable because the permitting process could have continued, but it was abandoned by the Road Commission.

It remains to be seen what the next step is for the Road Commission. In an interview, Road Commission manager Jim Iwanicki said that they have options including asking the court to look at specific things again, proceeding with the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, or dropping the case. It is also a possibility that the permitting process could continue under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While the road isn’t going to be built anytime soon, the future is still unclear. The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve still strongly opposes building a mine road through this remote and wild area. Enough damage has already occurred from mining related activities and we don’t need anymore!

* Click here for this and other articles by the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve.

** Click here to read Louis Galdieri's series of articles on the CR 595 controversy.

Environmentalists applaud dismissal of Road Commission's CR595 lawsuit

From Save the Wild U.P.

This photo shows Wildcat Canyon in the potential CR 595 corridor. The proposed 21-mile primary county road, running north-south between U.S. Highway 41 and County Road Triple A, was intended to connect the Eagle Mine with the Humboldt Mill. (File photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye. Reprinted with permission.)

MARQUETTE -- Grassroots environmental groups including Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP), Concerned Citizens of Big Bay (CCBB), the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP), and other environmental groups are hailing the decision of Federal Judge Robert Holmes Bell, who recently dismissed the Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In his dismissal, Judge Bell stated that the MCRC "doesn't have a viable claim against the EPA."

From the beginning environmentalists have contended that what the Road Commission wanted to build was an industrial road -- a mining haul road known as CR595 -- but serious threats to wetlands and watersheds proved insurmountable. The proposed road would have cut across 22 rivers and streams, including the Dead River and Yellow Dog River Watersheds, the Mulligan Creek headwaters, Voelker Creek, and Wildcat Canyon. It would also have damaged or destroyed numerous wetlands.

This wetland in the proposed CR 595 corridor is one of many sensitive areas that would be impacted by the proposed wilderness road intended primarily for hauling ore from the Eagle Mine to the Humboldt Mill. (Keweenaw Now file photo © and courtesy Jessica Koski) 

Alexandra Maxwell, SWUP’s executive director, applauded Judge Bell for his decision, adding SWUP hopes this will settle the issue of the proposed CR595.

"This decision wholly validates what U.P. environmental groups have expressed all along," Maxwell said. "The EPA’s objections to the construction of this road were valid and protective of one of the world’s largest sources of freshwater."

On Aug. 28, 2012, a crowd of about 400 filled the Ontario, Michigan and Huron rooms in Northern Michigan University's Don H. Bottum University Center for the Environmental Protection Agency's Public Hearing on the proposed County Road 595. Many residents, tribal representatives and other concerned citizens voiced their objections to the road. In December 2012 EPA objected to the wetland and stream crossing impacts in the permit application and prevented permitting of the road. In January 2015 Marquette County Road Commission voted to sue the EPA. (Keweenaw Now file photo)*

Chauncey Moran, Chairman of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Board of Directors, said, "The 595 issue demonstrates the reason we need clear siting requirements, because there are places where Thou Shalt Not."

During the Aug. 28, 2012, EPA Public Hearing on the proposed County Road 595, Chauncey Moran of Big Bay holds up a photo showing some of the wetlands that could be impacted by the proposed haul road. (Keweenaw Now file photo)

Jon Saari, SWUP vice president, said, "Let's hope Judge Bell's dismissal stands. Big highways are destructive swathes to natural habitats and wildlife. Woods roads are good enough in the UP backcountry."

Gene Champagne, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Big Bay, said the MCRC has wasted energy on a fraudulent application for this road.

"Moving forward, the MCRC needs to 'Quit Whining, Drop the Lawsuit, and Fix Our Roads.'"

During their Jan. 19, 2015, meeting, members of the Marquette County Road Commission return from a closed session discussion of their proposed lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. (File photo by Gene Champagne for Keweenaw Now)

Champagne noted the judge's decision received little coverage in the mainstream media.

"If the decision had gone the other way it would BIG news!!! The mainstream media must be getting or giving some of that 'dark money,'" Champagne said.

Jeffery Loman, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community tribal member and former federal oil regulator, said, "It should be clear to everyone now -- the Rio Tinto 'Woodland Road' proposal and MCRC’s subsequent CR-595 proposal didn't meet even the minimum requirements under the Clean Water Act. Their efforts to subvert our laws didn't work."

According to concerned citizen Catherine Parker, who has attended most Marquette County Road Commission meetings and followed federal objections to the proposed road, "MCRC doesn't have a case. Period. The evidence is right there in the files I received through Freedom of Information Act requests."

Horst Schmidt, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (UPEC) president, said the UPEC Board has authorized the following statement:

"The court’s decision promotes sound land stewardship by preserving the unique natural resources, including the wetlands and wildlife habitat along the proposed CR 595 corridor. The Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition acknowledges the persistent efforts of SWUP in supporting the EPA's original decision along with the diverse group of local citizens, businesses and other organizations that rallied behind SWUP and the EPA in support of the rule of law designed to protect our people and our fragile environment here in the U.P." 

Kathleen Heideman, SWUP president, said Judge Bell made the right decision.

"The facts never supported the Road Commission’s claims," Heideman noted.

Keweenaw Now attempted to contact the Marquette County Road Commission Thursday and learned their office is closed until Monday, June 20, for "staff training." We also tried to reach individual MCRC Board members today, but were not able to contact them.

A short article on TV-6 News Thursday evening (June 16) states that MCRC is asking Judge Bell to reconsider his decision.**

Editor's Notes:

* See our two-part article on the Aug. 28, 2012, EPA Public Hearing on CR595: "EPA Hearing on CR 595 permit: Part 1, Questions" and "EPA Hearing on CR 595: Part 2: Comments."

** Click here for the TV-6 article and video clip.

Michigan G-Men to perform March 26 in Marquette to benefit Yellow Dog Watershed Community Forest project

The Michigan G-Men of Ann Arbor will perform in a concert to benefit the Yellow Dog River Community Forest project on Saturday, March 26, at Coco’s Restaurant in Marquette. (Photo courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve)

MARQUETTE -- The Michigan G-Men (or Gentlemen for long), an all-male a cappella group from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, will present a concert to benefit the Yellow Dog River Community Forest project Saturday, March 26, at Coco’s Restaurant in Marquette.

Nationally renowned for their unique talents, the G-Men have competed in ICCA Finals in New York City’s Town Hall, toured extensively across the US, and performed privately for President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.* Northern Michigan University's Lake Effect Choir will also be at the event to lend their vocal support.

The event begins at 5 p.m. at Coco’s, 911 N. Lakeshore Boulevard in Marquette. Donations are greatly appreciated at the door and will go toward the purchase and establishment of the Yellow Dog River Community Forest. Many items will be available through a silent auction, including vacation home rentals, massage gift certificates, art, and local treats.

A short presentation about the project and the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve's  fundraising status as well as a performance by Milo Birch will precede the concert by the G-Men, who will then take the stage and share their voices and talents until 8 p.m.

The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP) is leading an effort to purchase and protect some of the forests and waterfalls along the Yellow Dog River in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The group has an opportunity to purchase 695 acres in order to establish the proposed Yellow Dog River Community Forest.

Yellow Dog Falls, also known as Hills Falls, are part of the Yellow Dog River Community Forest. (Photo © Carrie Whittaker and courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve)

"This place is important to many," says Emily Whittaker, YDWP Special Projects manager. "This particular property we are aiming to purchase features the primary public access point, a hiking trail, the most visited set of waterfalls, and habitat for rare plant and animal species. It’s a high quality ecosystem that draws locals and visitors who are looking to spend time outdoors. If we don't take the opportunity to protect this place, it could be sold off to private individuals or investors. We could see public access taken away, the forest converted, and the natural features degraded."**

The group has until March 31, 2016, to raise the total cost of the project, which is $1.1 million. Help them reach this goal by donating today and sharing with friends!

Visit the YDWP Crowdrise page to donate.

If you don't want to donate online, you can send check or cash to:
Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve
P.O. Box 5
Big Bay, MI 49808

* Click here to learn more about the Michigan G-Men and to listen to their music.

** Check out more about the Community Forest here.

Eagle Mine exploration of "Eagle East" site raises environmental concerns

From Save the Wild U.P.*

Eagle Mine's environmental impacts continue to expand. This aerial photograph taken on June 19, 2015, shows the following: 1. Salmon Trout River, Eagle orebody and Main Vent Air Raise, 2. Eagle Rock and mining portal tunnel, 3. Eagle Mine surface facility, and 4. new drilling rigs, logging and mineral exploration in what Lundin Mining is calling the "Eagle East" area. Click on photo for larger version. (Photo courtesy Save the Wild U.P.)

MARQUETTE -- Lundin Mining, parent company of Eagle Mine, recently announced exploration results for the potential orebody known as "Eagle East," which is located outside the current footprint of the mine and said to contain "high grade massive and semi-massive copper-nickel sulfide mineralization."

With the current Eagle orebody located just below the Salmon Trout River and Eagle East exploration approaching the Yellow Dog River, environmental groups are speaking out about renewed concerns regarding ground and surface water contamination, the creeping industrialization of the Yellow Dog Plains, undisclosed exploratory drilling, trash left by exploration contractors, and the threat posed by acid mine drainage (AMD).

The Yellow Dog River, part of which is designated a National Wild and Scenic River, is threatened by the proximity of the Eagle Mine and Eagle's continued mineral exploration. (Keweenaw Now file photo)

AMD is a dangerous byproduct of sulfide mining. Sought-after minerals such as copper, nickel, lead, cobalt, silver and zinc are embedded in sulfides; the process of extraction brings the sulfide-rich rock into contact with air and water, resulting in sulfuric acid. AMD could devastate watersheds like the Salmon Trout or the Yellow Dog, as it has historically devastated watersheds in coal mining regions, and in hardrock mining districts throughout the Rocky Mountains.

In Michigan, mineral exploration is regulated under Part 625, which establishes the protocol for adherence to environmental protections during the exploration phase. According to the state’s "Typical Metallic Mining Exploration Flowchart," much of the mineral exploration process occurs before any permits are required, allowing industry to perform much of the exploration process without regulatory or public scrutiny.

PVC pipe left behind by unregulated mineral exploration on the Yellow Dog Plains. (Photo courtesy Save the Wild U.P. (Photo courtesy Save the Wild U.P.)

Companies currently conducting exploratory drilling on the Yellow Dog Plains do so with impunity. According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) website, "(E)xploration companies are extremely secretive about their projects. All information regarding exploration drilling is considered proprietary under Part 625." According to the MDEQ, "Most metallic mineral exploration occurs in an area exempt from acquiring a Part 625 permit."

The lack of oversight has real consequences. Following a phase of surface and seismic mineral exploration in 2014, performed by Lundin Mining contractors who pulled miles of geophysical survey cables through the landscape, piles of PVC pipes were left abandoned in forests, ravines, and swamps, a plague of plastic ribbons fluttered from trees, and ATV tracks cut through wetlands.. Members of the public -- including adjacent landowners and watershed groups -- learn of exploration drilling sites only when the drill rigs appear, bringing 24-hour drilling noise, or leaving behind pools of drilling fluid.

Drilling oil from mining exploration in the Yellow Dog Watershed. (Photo © and courtesy Shawn Malone)

"Given the new Wild West mining camp vibe, who is monitoring the work of Lundin's numerous contractors?" asked Alexandra Maxwell, Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP) interim director. "What enforcement tools are in place to guarantee adherence to environmental safeguards, as specified under Part 625? Is anyone really checking the situation on the ground? It appears that Lundin’s contractors don’t even pick up their trash when they finish a project."

The circle on this photo shows trash left by Eagle Mine exploration contractors. (Photo courtesy Save the Wild U.P.)

While Lundin is quick to promote the potential "Eagle East" discovery to its investors, the company insists that it is too soon to consider any environmental concerns.

Eagle Mine’s spokesman Dan Blondeau has stated, "We're very early in the exploration stage for this area. It's too early to tell if this will materialize into anything significant. It's too early to talk mining or permitting.”

According to the MDEQ’s mineral exploration flowchart, however, drilling is actually one of the final stages of exploration.

Kathleen Heideman, SWUP president, says, "Lundin's new orebody appears to be comprised of copper-nickel-platinum-palladium, all wrapped in a matrix of massive hype. Investors, beware! No word on how much uranium-vanadium-arsenic this orebody will contain -- but the Yellow Dog River will be directly threatened. This is nothing to celebrate."

Michael Loukinen, SWUP advisory board member, filmmaker, and retired professor of Sociology at Northern Michigan University, has also expressed concern that the Yellow Dog River could be contaminated by expansion of mining in this area.

"Rio Tinto (former owner of Eagle Mine) had made a big public relations effort to assure citizens that their mining was going to leave a small footprint and would NOT contaminate the Yellow Dog River watershed -- just the Salmon Trout River. Now by 'discovering' a so-called new deposit they are incrementally expanding their footprint and clearly violating their promises," Loukinen noted. "I fear that this will not be the first discovery of new deposits but the beginning of a pattern of new environmental losses."

Cynthia Pryor,Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP) board member, says a hydrologic assessment of the Yellow Dog Plains is needed.

"In 2004, the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP), Concerned Citizens of Big Bay, all but one of the townships of Marquette County, and the Marquette County Commission petitioned the State of Michigan to require that a full Hydrologic Assessment of the Yellow Dog Plains be done, by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) -- 'before' any mining activities took place on the Plains. That did not happen," Pryor noted. "Now, more than ever, there needs to be a third party hydrologic assessment of the Plains; and the only party qualified to do an unbiased assessment is the USGS. They are already involved in surface water monitoring on the Plains, so let them do their job and give us, the people of the State of Michigan, the straight story about the cumulative impact of these sulfide metallic mines on the Yellow Dog Plains."

Jeffery Loman, former federal oil regulator, expresses concern that Eagle Mine is in violation of the Clean Water Act.

"The mine’s industrial wastewater discharges at Eagle mine are presenting to the surface," Loman said. "Soon there will be undisputed evidence that Lundin is violating the Clean Water Act. When people across the U.P. finally realize our water is at risk, Eagle East will go South."

* Founded in 2004, Save the Wild U.P. is a grassroots environmental organization dedicated to preserving the Upper Peninsula of Michigan's unique cultural and environmental resources. For more information visit savethewildup.org.

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.

Michigan Court of Appeals affirms Eagle Mine’s permits

From: Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve
Posted on their Web site Aug. 15, 2014
Reprinted here with permission

Aerial photo of Lundin Eagle Mine on July 31, 2014. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye. Reprinted with permission.)

MARQUETTE -- On Aug. 13, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to continue the Lundin Eagle Project, the only mine in the U.S. where nickel is the primary targeted material in addition to copper. The original co-petitioners against the permitting of the mine include: Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP), National Wildlife Federation (NWF), Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), and the Huron Mountain Club (HMC). The operation has been in development since 2003 and in litigation since 2006.

The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed in 2012 to hear the case regarding the 2007 decision to issue the mining and discharge permits to Kennecott Minerals. The date for oral arguments was set for June 3, 2014. Over 500 tribal members traveled from the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community to attend the hearing in Lansing and staged a demonstration on the steps of the courthouse in opposition to the project. The portal to the mine enters through Eagle Rock, a sacred native place of worship in ceded territory, facts which have been disregarded by the state justice system. Now that the ruling has been settled, the Lundin Eagle Mine is permitted to move forward into production sometime during fall 2014.

"If only judges were required to pay a visit to the location in legal debate, then they might have seen a different picture," said Mindy Otto, Executive Director of the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve. "The project lacks a complete Environmental Impact Statement required by law, and now we are seeing a pattern of activities that are illegal and detrimental and are caused by the rapid development of a haul road for this mine project which should have been included in that document."

Otto is referring to the recent violation of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act when an unlawful quantity of turbid water and suspended sediment was deposited in a wetland, tributary, and the East Branch of the Salmon Trout River dated Aug. 4, 2014.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruling is a disgrace to tribal nations and the environmental justice system designed to protect what we value most in this Great Lakes state. Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve will continue preserving and protecting the Yellow Dog Watershed, identifying threats, and holding natural resource agencies accountable to their position with a slew of honest scientists and concerned citizens while we consider more legal options.

Road work on County Road AAA polluting wetland

From: Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve
Posted July 29, 2014, on yellowdogwatershed.org
Reprinted in part with permission

Tons of sediment pollution entering the Salmon Trout Watershed due to a ruptured spring. (Photo courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve. Reprinted with permission.)

BIG BAY, Mich. -- Over the past two weeks, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve has been investigating and documenting a serious water quality concern caused by the road construction on the County Road AAA. A spring that feeds the East Branch of the Salmon Trout River had been ruptured during construction activities and it is releasing spring water into construction areas. The eruption of water caused significant and severe runoff of sediment into the stream. From there, the sediment was transported into a wetland downstream. After the wetland reached its capacity, the sediment continued downstream into the East branch of the Salmon Trout River.

Massive releases of sediment can cause damage to local streams and wetlands. Suspended sediment can clog the gills of native trout, increase mortality of aquatic insects that the trout feed on, and fill in the deep holes and undercut banks where trout seek refuge. In addition, wetlands that have experienced this level of sedimentation can no longer function as a "filter" that keeps streams healthy. ...

Click here to read the rest of this article and comments on the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Web site.

Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve: Road work near Mulligan Creek not meeting permit requirement

Posted by Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve on
July 10, 2014
Reprinted in part with permission

According to the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, Plum Creek Timber Company has been involved in road construction that does not meet stated permit conditions. Trees have been pushed directly into the wetlands near Mulligan Creek. (Photo courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve. Reprinted with permission.)

NORTHERN MARQUETTE COUNTY, Mich. -- During the week of June 23, 2014, a reconnaissance survey of forest and wetland conditions on the Snowmobile Trail 5 route by the Yellow Dog RIVERKEEPER ® led to a discovery of road construction by Plum Creek Timber Company that did not meet with stated permit conditions.

The company’s permit allowed for construction at the Mulligan Creek Bridge and included additional fill and trenching for ditches on either side of the snowmobile trail. Upon visit by the RIVERKEEPER, no permit was posted on site, no silt fencing was in place, and other sedimentation protection best management practices were absent next to this high-quality wetland and cold water trout stream. Past surveys by the RIVERKEEPER show that this wetland was habitat for the endangered Narrow Leaved Gentian, an extremely rare wetland plant.

The Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP) is investigating whether the company received approval to impact this plant’s habitat, as is required under Michigan’s Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act....

Click here to read the rest of this article on the Yellowdog Watershed Preserve Web site.

Michigan Court of Appeals Lansing hearing on Eagle Mine state permits draws 500 KBIC members

By Michele Bourdieu (with information from Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and Eagle Mine)

Members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) drum in front of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing on June 3, 2014, the occasion of a long-awaited hearing by the Michigan Court of Appeals on a contested case brought against the State of Michigan for issuing permits to Kennecott/Rio Tinto (now Lundin Mining) for the Eagle Mine Project near Big Bay, Michigan. KBIC leaders pictured here include Ogimaa (Chief) Shalifoe, left in red on the drum, and KBIC Councilman Eddy Edwards to his right in orange also on the drum. (Photo © and courtesy Jessica Koski)

BARAGA -- About 500 members of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) stood united around the importance of keeping their waters clean from contamination associated with sulfide mining on June 3, 2014, at the Michigan Court of Appeals in Lansing. Oral arguments were heard involving the Eagle Mine, Michigan’s first permitted sulfide mine in the Upper Peninsula.

"This is the first time in our generation that the community as a whole came together to fight for true sovereignty and engage in spontaneous government participation. The goal of the new moving-forward Tribal Council is to bring transparency and involvement to the Anishinaabeg (the people)," said Donald Shalifoe, Sr., KBIC’s Ogimaa (Chief).

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) tribal members gather in front of the Michigan Hall of Justice for the June 3, 2014, contested case hearing on the Eagle Mine, in which KBIC and three other groups petition against what they consider illegal permitting of a sulfide mine by the State of Michigan. (Photo © and courtesy Jessica Koski)

Many tribal members carpooled and traveled about eight hours to line up for the 10 a.m. Lansing hearing. KBIC’s remarkable presence overwhelmed the Michigan Hall of Justice, whose staff reported it was their largest turnout ever for a court hearing.

Some of those in the crowd in front of the Hall of Justice carry signs asking for protection of the water on the Yellow Dog Plains. (Photo © and courtesy Gene Champagne)

Tribal leaders and elders observed the hearing from within the court room, while hundreds watched and listened to the proceedings in an overflow video conferencing room.  Traditional drumming and singing resounded outside the building following the hearing.

KBIC’s Vice President Carole LaPointe remarked, "It was a very educational experience for our membership and youth."

One of the youngest KBIC members, Skyler Sandman-Shelifoe, has a special seat -- a tikinaagan, meaning cradle board -- for this peaceful family gathering of all ages in Lansing. (Photo © and courtesy Jessica Koski, Skyler's Mom)

The Anishinaabeg band has opposed the Eagle Mine development, located on Treaty of 1842 ceded homeland, since it was first permitted by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) in 2006.

Unsettled concerns involve the mining regulatory process, improper permitting and inadequate assessment of impacts to the area environment, cultural resources and water quality, including groundwater contamination and the potential for perpetual acid mine drainage upstream from Lake Superior.

Donald Shalifoe, Sr., KBIC’s Ogimaa (Chief), foreground in red, addresses Keweenaw Bay Indian Community members gathered in front of the Michigan Hall of Justice in Lansing for the June 3, 2014, contested case hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals. (Photo courtesy Keweenaw Bay Indian Community)

KBIC -- along with the Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve, National Wildlife Federation, and Huron Mountain Club -- originally brought the case forward in 2008, asserting that the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) issued permits for Eagle Mine without assuring the permittee followed the criteria set in Michigan’s non-ferrous mining law, Part 632. Initially, the case was heard by an administrative judge. The case then went to Circuit Court in Ingham County, where Judge Paula Manderfield concluded that the MDEQ rightfully granted the permits. The petitioners filed an appeal, which has been in limbo, waiting for a date for the Court of Appeals to hear the case.

Tribal member Jeffery Loman said on June 3, "The hearing today is another testimony to the fact that inadequate regulation and collusion between industry and government results in endless litigation."

A sign in the crowd points out the contradiction between "Pure Michigan" (a state slogan to attract tourism) and the potential dangers to water quality posed by sulfide mining. (Photo © and courtesy Gene Champagne)

Preceding the hearing, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve Executive Director Mindy Otto was quoted on their Web site as saying, "There are many points that prove the MDEQ should not have issued the permits. They should have taken certain things into consideration, such as the fact that under Part 632, it is required to assess the impacts to the 'affected area.' The company stated that the only affected area was everything inside the fence line at Eagle Mine. It is clear this is not true, with a plethora of impacts that have happened and continue to happen today."

One aspect of the evolving case questions what qualifies as a "place of worship" under Michigan’s sulfide mining statute. An initial ruling by Michigan Administrative Law Judge Richard Patterson recommended mitigation of impacts to an Anishinaabeg sacred place, Migi zii wa sin (Eagle Rock), but the MDEQ made a final permit decision asserting only built structures are places of worship. Since then the portal to the Eagle Mine has been constructed under Eagle Rock.

This 2012 photo shows the decline tunnel that has been constructed under Eagle Rock (tree-covered outcrop at left behind fence) to serve as the portal to the Eagle Mine. The decline tunnel is 18 feet in diameter and descends under Eagle Rock at a 13 percent grade (Every 100 feet it drops 13 feet). (Keweenaw Now file photo)

Discriminatory enforcement of Michigan law has led to substantial degradation to KBIC’s sacred site.  This includes obtrusive mine facilities and a decline access ramp into the base of Eagle Rock, non-stop noise and activity, and hindered traditional access and use.  Spiritually significant high places like Eagle Rock are used in solitude by the Anishinaabeg for multi-day fasting, vision quest and ceremony.

Despite the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Native people still struggle to protect their remaining sacred places in the face of extractive development agendas.

"It is a shame that the United States of America, proudly founded upon values of religious freedom, has trouble guaranteeing this right to all of its nation’s first people," said tribal member Jessica Koski.

Gene and Carla Champagne of Concerned Citizens of Big Bay were also present in the Hall of Justice during part of the hearing.

"We were able to squeeze into a standing-room-only TV room to watch the proceedings," Gene Champagne said. "The courtroom itself was full. The appeals panel had already heard arguments about the desecration of a sacred site and were finishing up discussion on the water treatment plant."

Gene noted he was impressed by the solidarity in the gathering outside and the cautious optimism of those who had witnessed the entire hearing.

"I was moved that so many people had traveled so far to defend a fundamental constitutional, tribal, and universal right -- the freedom of religion and the right to worship and practice as we believe," he added. "It is too bad the MDEQ does not regard the constitution as relevant. Hopefully the Appeals Court will."

KBIC anticipates a decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals within six months. The Eagle Mine’s time frame for production start-up is the end of 2014.

"While the court deliberates, it is important to remember that regardless of the outcome, we are in the right for standing up for the Yellow Dog Plains," said Emily Whittaker of Big Bay, Mich., who joined KBIC members and other locally affected residents during the hearing in Lansing. "We hope the court understands their decision will have long lasting implications for this place, as well as other areas that are slated for mining."

According to KBIC, several environmental groups and many concerned citizens, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling will be an important precedent for additional sulfide mining proposals threatening Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and waters of the Great Lakes.

Eagle Mine issues statement on Court of Appeals hearing

A recent aerial view of Eagle Mine near Big Bay, Michigan. Eagle Rock, the Anishinaabeg sacred site, is the green outcrop in the lower right quarter of the photo. (Photo courtesy Eagle Mine. Reprinted with permission.)

On June 3, Eagle Mine issued a statement noting they are confident in their own position and optimistic about the pending Appeals Court decision.

Commenting on the arguments made before the Michigan Court of Appeals on June 3, Eagle Mine General Manager Mike Welch said, "Eagle Mine appreciates the opportunity to argue the merits of the case in support of the permits granted by MDEQ and the agency's extensive review process that has withstood previous challenges over the past eight years.

"This is a testament to our team's expertise, experience and professionalism in terms of its environmental protectiveness, safety culture and commitment to the community in which we operate. We are confident the project complies with all state and federal laws and regulations for safeguarding the environment. Even more, we are extremely proud of the nearly 800 men and women that have built Eagle."

Eagle Mine's statement notes the small, high-grade deposit will produce 360 million pounds of nickel, 295 million pounds of copper and small amounts of other metals over an estimated eight-year mine life. They expect to begin operations in late 2014.

Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve to hold Volunteer Stream Monitoring Training May 24

Kris Wierenga, Ally Dale and Sandy Nye monitor macroinvertebrate habitats and populations in the Middle Branch Salmon Trout River. (Photo © and courtesy Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve)

BIG BAY -- Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve (YDWP) is getting ready for stream monitoring on the Salmon Trout and Yellow Dog Rivers through the Michigan Clean Water Corps program (MiCorps).

YDWP will host their bi-annual Volunteer Stream Monitoring Training starting at 10 a.m. on Saturday, May 24, at the Powell Township School, located at 101 Deutsch Ave. in Big Bay.

This training is open to the public and free of charge. The event will begin with an indoor presentation at the school; then participants will head to the water for some hands-on training in the stream.

A portion of the monitoring involves collecting and sorting macroinvertebrates -- small aquatic creatures that live in water bodies. They like different types of habitats and some tolerate higher levels of water pollution than others. State-wide programs such as MiCorps collect them and do chemical testing to ultimately help determine how clean our water is.

This is a volunteer-based project. To RSVP to this May 24 event please contact Christy at: christy@yellowdogwatershed.org or call 906- 345-9223.

YDWP is especially in need of local individuals who are interested in taking on leadership roles for this program and becoming crew leaders. This would entail taking on extra training to gain confidence with your collection skills and bug identification. You will become responsible for taking volunteers into the field to complete a couple sites per season. Please let YDWP know if you are interested in this exciting opportunity to take a step forward in the protection of our water.

Don't forget to sign up for the Volunteer Stream Monitoring Training session this weekend! No previous experience is required to participate in this citizen science monitoring, and everyone is welcome to attend.

See also the YDWP Facebook page.

Citizens question, challenge MDEQ proposed Groundwater Discharge Permit for Eagle Mine

By Michele Bourdieu

Steve Casey, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Upper Peninsula District Supervisor, Water Resources Division, right, answers a question from the audience during a lengthy question-answer session preceding the March 25 MDEQ Public Hearing on re-issuance of the Groundwater Discharge Permit for the Eagle Mine near Big Bay, Mich., a projected nickel-copper mine now owned by Lundin Mining Company. On the panel with Casey, from left, are Jeff Warner, MDEQ geologist, Lansing office; Jeannette Bailey, Groundwater Permits Unit, Lansing; and Rick Rusz, groundwater permits chief, Lansing, and decision maker for this permit. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

ISHPEMING, Mich. -- It's about the water. That was the first concern of most of the nearly 150 citizens who showed up at Westwood High School in Ishpeming for the March 25, 2014, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Public Hearing on the reissuance of the Groundwater Discharge Permit for Eagle Mine.

Eagle Mine, February 2014. On the right is Eagle Rock, an Ojibwa sacred site with the mine portal (right, foreground). The building on the bottom of the photo is the aggregate storage/back-fill plant. Here aggregate or crushed development rock is stored prior to being used as cemented rock fill (CRF) in the mine. The enclosed building above it is the coarse ore storage area or COSA, where the underground trucks unload the ore. The over-the-road trucks enter this building and are loaded. Prior to leaving the site for the Humboldt mill, they drive through the truck wash to remove any debris. (Photo courtesy Lundin Mining Co. Reprinted with permission.)

Some braved the cold to drive an hour or more in the prolonged winter weather the U.P. has been experiencing this year. Several MDEQ officials from both the Lansing office and the regional Marquette office were on hand -- both on the panel conducting the hearing and in the audience -- to answer questions during the question and answer session, which lasted about two and a half hours, and to listen to comments from the public, expressed more formerly during the hearing portion, which lasted another hour and a half.

Both the quality and the quantity of water to be discharged into the groundwater and eventually into surface water -- including springs (or seeps), wetlands, rivers, streams, lakes and Lake Superior -- were subjects of discussion and comments at the hearing on this proposed draft permit.

Water Quality: Rules determine setting limits for substances in groundwater

Before the question period began, MDEQ officials offered a preliminary Power Point slide presentation to attempt to answer some questions or comments they had already received from the public. In the following videoclip, Steve Casey, MDEQ Upper Peninsula District Supervisor, Water Resources Division, who conducted the hearing, points out some of the issues MDEQ is already considering based on the public's concerns:

In a presentation preceding the question period at the March 25, 2014, public hearing on the re-issuance of the Groundwater Discharge Permit for Eagle Mine, Steve Casey, who conducts the hearing, presents several issues taken from public comments on the permit and gives an example of one issue, the need for specific limits rather than just reporting, using nickel as an example. (Videos by Keweenaw Now)

Another concern expressed by the public before the hearing concerned uranium that was detected in water from the Temporary Development Rock Storage Area (TDRSA) at the Eagle Mine.

The MDEQ's fact sheet on this permit states, "The source (of this uranium) is thought to be a natural occurrence from rock that was used in construction and brought in from another site. Uranium is removed from the wastewater by the (water) treatment system."

According to Casey, the amount of uranium detected from the water from the TDRSA was lower than drinking water standards, while, in other parts of the U.P. uranium is higher than drinking water standards. In fact, he noted, 20 percent of the wells in the UP exceed drinking water standards for uranium.

Casey speaks to this issue in the following video:

During MDEQ's presentation preceding the question session, Steve Casey of MDEQ addresses a public concern about uranium detected at the Eagle Mine.

One important change in the proposed permit (which is a reissuance required five years after the first permit was issued) is what the public perceives as relaxed limits on vanadium and pH. Here Casey explains why these limits were changed to higher values than those in the original permit:

Steve Casey explains why limits for vanadium and pH were changed, following rules for setting limits.

During the question session, Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay and Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve asks for further explanation of the pH limit (9.7).

Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay and Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve challenges the 9.7 pH limit. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

MDEQ panel members attempt to reply to Pryor's questions:

MDEQ panel members address Cynthia Pryor's question on pH.

During the official part of the hearing, when citizens in the audience were invited to state their comments, but with no reply from MDEQ officials, Kathleen Heideman, Save the Wild U.P. president, expressed her concerns about pH limits. She also spoke about air pollution from the mine that could impact the groundwater and surface water.

During the hearing, Kathleen Heideman, Save the Wild U.P. president, challenges the permit limit of 9.7 for pH, noting it could cause problems downstream. She also expresses concern that relaxed limits for airborne pollution could result in pollutants from the air being washed into the soil and into the groundwater. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

Margaret Comfort of Michigamme pointed out in her comments at the hearing that vanadium can have many harmful impacts on human health. Vanadium pentoxide dust and fumes, she noted, can cause illnesses from bronchitis to lung damage. Comfort also cited a study that showed high concentrations of vanadium (which can cause kidney damage) in acid mine drainage from coal mining in Indiana.

"Your job is to regulate, not facilitate," Comfort told the MDEQ panel.

Casey told Keweenaw Now that vanadium has not been detected in Eagle’s discharge.

"The highest amount allowed (by Eagle’s draft permit) in the groundwater is 3.6 ug/l," Casey noted. "This value has been approached and even exceeded due to natural variation in the groundwater."

Groundwater limits in the permit are set by the rules, which state that limits for most inorganic substances are set at halfway between background groundwater quality and Part 201 generic residential cleanup criteria.

This slide in the MDEQ presentation explains how rules provide for groundwater limits in the permit. (Photo by Keweenaw Now)

While the Eagle Mine's Wastewater Treatment Facility, using reverse osmosis, is used to remove ions from water before it is discharged into the groundwater and eventually surface water, specific (electrical) conductance is used to indicate whether the treatment system is working right and successfully treating the water.

In this video clip, Erik Moisio of Marquette, a Save the Wild U.P. volunteer, asks about the groundwater limits:

During the question session  Erik Moisio of Marquette, a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asks about how limits are set for substances in groundwater. Chromium is used as an example in the MDEQ slide presentation.

Corey Kelly of Marquette, also a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asked what the procedures would be if the company violates limits on the permit:

Corey Kelly of Marquette, a volunteer for Save the Wild U.P., asks what would happen if the company violates the Groundwater Discharge Permit. Casey explains how specific conductance is used to monitor the water treatment and describes some circumstances under which the discharge could be shut down.

Casey also noted the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) has suggested a better way to use specific conductance as an indicator of water treatment effectiveness. MDEQ staff are working with KBIC on this, he added.

In their Jan. 20, 2014, letter to MDEQ on this draft permit, KBIC notes that specific conductance monitors the effluent from the Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF), but the Groundwater Discharge Permit does not require monitoring the chemical characteristics of the influent for comparison.

"The chemical profile entering the WWTF in the influent would seem to be a critical component of evaluating the efficiency and performance of the water treatment process," the letter states. "This would require just one more sample to be collected during sampling of the rest of the WWTF yet would yield very useful information."

Casey and other MDEQ officials met with KBIC Tribal Council members and other tribal members in Baraga the morning of March 25, before the hearing.

"We’re working with KBIC to improve the accuracy of the "Allowable Operating Range," which is used to determine whether the treatment system is working right or whether the discharge should be stopped," Casey told Keweenaw Now. "Influent monitoring is part of that conversation."

In her statement during the hearing, Jessica Koski, KBIC mining technical assistant, mentions the need for strict enforcement to protect groundwater and surface water:

Jessica Koski, KBIC mining technical assistant, thanks MDEQ officials for their visit and consultation with KBIC leaders. She expresses concern for the potential of acid mine drainage from Eagle Mine in a pristine watershed and the need to recognize the interface between groundwater and surface water in setting limits.

KBIC member Jeffery Loman spoke during the hearing and requested that MDEQ regulate the groundwater permit under the same standards as the Clean Water Act:

KBIC member Jeffery Loman expresses appreciation for the MDEQ officials' visit to consult with the KBIC Tribal Council and other tribal members. Loman says he is glad to hear the MDEQ share his goal of protecting surface water as well as groundwater in the tribe's ceded territories, where treaties protect KBIC's rights to hunt, fish and gather. He asks that MDEQ, with the authority delegated to them by the federal government, issue a permit with Clean Water Act standards.

Attorney Michelle Halley, whose analysis of the permit was recently posted on the Save the Wild U.P. Web site, also spoke about the Clean Water Act in her comments at the hearing.

Attorney Michelle Halley comments during the hearing that MDEQ should require a Clean Water Act permit. (Photo © and courtesy Jeremiah Eagle Eye)

Halley noted the difference betweeen the (federal) Clean Water Act and MDEQ's Groundwater Discharge Permit.

"Under the Clean Water Act greater federal oversight would be involved," Halley said. "The anti-degradation rule would be applied."

Halley noted the mining company has intentionally formulated their mine plan to avoid federal permits, and the MDEQ has perpetuated this.

"You have the ability to require a Clean Water Act permit, and that's exactly the tool you should be using to accomplish your stated goals," Halley said.

Other speakers offered their personal views on the importance of water protection, based on their experiences living in other regions that have been degraded by mining or other industries.

Sara Culver of Marquette spoke about her experience in Grand Ledge, Mich., where the Grand River, once a popular fishing spot, is now polluted.

"We should not be putting a mine at our water source," Culver said. "We need water. We don't need more pollution."

Culver also referred to Thomas Power's report on the economic effects of mining on communities that often suffer from the boom and bust industry.*

Robert Tammen of  Soudan, Minn., who worked 30 years in Michigan's Empire and Tilden mines and has opposed PolyMet's proposed open-pit sulfide mine in northeastern Minnesota which would impact the Lake Superior watershed, spoke about the detrimental effects of Minnesota mining on the local economy and the environment.

"In Michigan and in Minnesota, mining does not have a good record for economic development," Tammen said.

Noting in the discussion preceding the hearing how much higher permit levels are than background levels, Tammen said Michigan could use an anti-degradation clause in their statute.

Richard Sloat of Iron River noted mines of the past, such as the Buck and Dover mines, are examples of how pollutants were not regulated. He said their hazardous waste was trucked to sites right near Lake Superior. Sloat also said he wondered if state officials had ever done a study on the cumulative effects of metals and other substances released into the environment from mining.

Water quantity: Will the Eagle Mine be able to handle the amount of groundwater discharge and still protect surface water?

MDEQ's Fact Sheet on this draft permit, distributed at the hearing and available on their Web site, states, "The discharge permit is designed so that surface water quality standards will be met at the ground water surface water interface."**

In addition, Casey told Keweenaw Now that the Part 632 permit requires monitoring of springs. 

Several questions and comments at the hearing referred to concerns about the need for a hydrologeological study to determine whether or how the Eagle Mine can guarantee that groundwater discharges will protect the large areas of surface water on the Yellow Dog Plains -- from springs (seeps) to streams and rivers to Lake Superior.

During the question session, Steve Garske of Marenisco, Mich., a botanist who has done considerable hiking on the Yellow Dog Plains, described the surface water areas that could be impacted by groundwater and requested that a hydrogeological study be done for this permit:

Steve Garske describes how groundwater on the Yellow Dog Plains is not very far below the surface and sometimes becomes surface water. Garske notes reasons why a hydrogeological survey of the area is needed before this permit is allowed.

Offering a detailed explanation of this need for a hydrogeological study, Gail Griffith, retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, spoke about a 2004 petition requesting a hydrology survey. She also mentions the change from what would have been an EPA underground injection system to the present above-ground TWIS (Treated Water Injection System) regulated by MDEQ, and she notes the unknown impacts of the groundwater on surface water:

In her comments at the hearing Gail Griffith, retired Northern Michigan University chemistry professor, gives reasons why a hydrogeological study of the area to be impacted by Eagle Mine is needed.

Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay gave more details on the refusal of Kennecott/Rio Tinto (former Eagle Mine owner) to support a hydrogeological study in the past and the problem this lack of a study poses for this groundwater permit:

Cynthia Pryor of Big Bay adds her voice to those calling for a hydrogeological study for the Yellow Dog Plains.

During the question session preceding the hearing, William Malmsten, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition president, asks about snow melt and other climate events that could impact the efficiency of the groundwater discharge at the Eagle Mine. Casey explains the mine's capacity for flood events and snow melt in this video clip:

William Malmsten, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition president, questions whether Eagle Mine can handle snow melt and flood events.

Catherine Parker of Marquette asked about water storage capacity at the mine, noting a report from a DEQ consultant on the Part 632 mine permit, David Sainsbury, who had said mine water inflows were likely to have been underestimated:

Catherine Parker of Marquette cites an MDEQ consultant, David Sainsbury, who questioned estimates of mine water inflows for the Eagle Mine. Joe Maki, MDEQ geologist, replies to her question.

Parker told Keweenaw Now recently that her information for the question on Sainsbury's report was based on a signed and notarized affadavit (March 2007) from Dr. Jack Wittman, documenting a phone conversation he had with MDEQ consultant Dr. David Sainsbury regarding the (Kennecott/Rio Tinto, former owner of Eagle Mine) application to mine.

Not all comments at the hearing were critical of the permit. A few were supportive.

Alvar Maki, Michigamme Township supervisor, while he expressed a preference for holding the hearing in his township since the mine is located in Michigamme Township, said he supported the permit based on the independent monitoring of the Superior Watership Partnership.***

"We think this permit should be approved," Maki said.

Michael Welch, Eagle Mine general manager, spoke at the hearing about his and Lundin's commitment to transparency and communication with the community as well as their commitment to protect water quality:

Lundin Mining Company's Michael Welch, Eagle Mine general manager, expresses support for the Groundwater Discharge Permit and his wish to be transparent with the local community.

On the other hand, Save the Wild U.P. Executive Director Alexandra Thebert, addressing the MDEQ officials in her comments, cited several requests for improved communication with the public and assurances that the groundwater will be protected:

Alexandra Thebert, Save the Wild U.P. executive director, comments on the need for more communication between the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the public.

Thebert noted documents should be posted on the MDEQ Web site to be more accessible so that citizens will be spared the need to resort to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. She also reiterated the request by Carla Champagne of Big Bay and others that future hearings on the Eagle Mine be held in Big Bay or in a large population center such as Marquette so that those most directly affected by the mine can attend.

Toward the end of the hearing Chauncey Moran, who has been monitoring streams and springs on the Yellow Dog Plains for several years, displayed some of his photos related to groundwater issues:

Displaying some of his photographs, Chauncey Moran notes his observations of the TWIS (Treated Water Infiltration System), a drilling rig, water going into the development rock storage and his work with the springs.

Moran said he believes the MDEQ is doing a great job but perhaps receiving information that is not true.

Today, April 1, 2014, is the final day to submit public comments on the permit. According to Steve Casey, these may be submitted by mail and postmarked April 1 or emailed before midnight April 1. Email comments to Jeannette Bailey at baileyj@michigan.gov or mail them to Jeannette Bailey, Department of Environmental Quality, Water Resources Division, Permits Section, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Notes:

*Click here to read about Thomas Power's presentations on the economic impacts of mining during his visit to Houghton last fall.

** Click here to access the Fact Sheet, the draft Groundwater Discharge Permit, Eagle Mine contour maps and other related documents on the MDEQ Web site.
*** Click here to learn about the Superior Watershed Partnership's Community Monitoring Program at the Eagle Mine.