Last night I attended the Michigan League of Conservation Voters workshop on submitting comments about Kennecott Minerals' application to operate a sulfide ore mine along the Salmon Trout river in Upper Michigan. Very interesting, especially the background offered about Michigan's new rules on sulfide ore mining came to be. Listening to the history of those rules, and to the plans of various citizens' groups to ensure their enforcement, I got the sense that I'd walked into a tense game of U.P. Hold 'Em, each side betting up the pot to compel the other (along with some players not yet seated) to fold and leave the table. In the pot? For one side, as much as $10 billion worth of nickel. For the other, the largest unpaved and unelectrified area in the Midwest.
THE FLOP
When the sulfide ore mining rules were finalized last winter, all sides agreed that they were the most stringent in the nation. They set high standards for protecting the land and water while mining occurs, and require mine operators to take extensive action to restore the mine site to pre-disturbance condition once mining ends, right down to the reestablishment of native plant species. These standards came about not so much over the opposition of Kennecott as with its consent. Environmental and community activists played up the high ecological, wilderness, and tourism values of the mine location, and Kennecott gladly tossed in enough chips to see that bet. One of the best-capitalized mining companies in the world, Kennecott, supported tough regulations in hopes of discouraging smaller, less flush companies from getting into the game. There currently are a number of locations around the U.P. drawing interest as sites for mining copper, nickel, zinc, gold, and other metals from sulfide ores.
So in this case, cutthroat capitalism and ecological concern joined forces to produce apparently strong and certainly innovative environmental protections. Michigan's sulfide ore mining laws are unique in that that operate on what environmental ethicists call the precautionary principle. This means that preventing harm to the environment, rather than minimizing risk from harms done to it, will be the primary consideration when reviewing applications for extraction, development, and other activities that will disturb landscapes. Under a precautionary approach, the burden of proof lies on the party proposing the disturbance. That party must be able to demonstrate that their action will not irreparably damage land, water, and wildlife, or harm human health. Typically, under what is known as a risk assessment approach, those who wish to stop a disturbance must demonstrate that it will cause harm above and beyond established acceptable levels of risk. Risk assessment has usually placed advocates of environmental protection at a disadvantage. Now they hold a wild card that may force Kennecott and other companies to ante up more to ensure that their operations run safely.
THE TURN
The former director of the local Sierra Club Chapter, who participated in negotiations over the mining rules, said that it felt good, yet very strange, to stand in front of a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality panel with a Kennecott official in full agreement over the proposed rules. As the next round of play unfolds, that concord seems to be unravelling.
After the rules were in place, Kennecott filed a mining application with the DEQ. This application outlined the procedures Kennecott would follow to extract ore and guard against pollution from the mine. Upon review, the application appears wanting. While Kennecott states that it will take steps to prevent pollution, it often doesn't state what these steps will be, or show that they will prevent harms from occurring. For instance:
* Kennecott plans to mine from the bottom to the top of the deposit. The planned ceiling of the mine will be 150' directly below the Salmon Trout river. How does Kennecott know that this will not cause "subsidence" of the river into the mine? They don't. They plan to test the strength of overhead bedrock as they go. Does this mean it is impossible for them to determine how far up they can mine without endangering the river? Of course not. But under a precautionary standard, Kennecott must demonstrate in advance that the mine will not threaten the river running overhead.
*In the application, Kennecott states that it "intends" to design a leakproof system for disposing of mine runoff. No specifics for this system are offered, and consequently, there is no way of determining how leakproof it might be. Again, the burden of proof for non-impairment of the site is not met.
*The mining rules require that applicants must assess impacts to fish, wildlife, plants, and human activity. Kennecott's application gives insufficient attention to these resources to determine that mining would not irreparably harm them. According to last night's presentation, Kennecott's evaluation of local plant life is based on a single day of observation, and this when representatives of the company have been on the site for five years. The application does not include any special consideration of the Coaster brook trout population, which are among the main reasons for concern about this mine.
So in a sense, Kennecott is bluffing, offering a semblance of compliance without holding the cards that would make that compliance genuine. Between now and the end of the public comment period on May 16th, those concerned about the mine will be working to call that bluff, and under the precautionary standard, it's really not that hard, even for environmental lay people like me. All one needs to do is look through the Environmental Impact Assessment filed with the application for items that do not clearly demonstrate that actions taken will cause environmental harms. No drainage system specified? Deny the permit until we see an effective one is proposed. No method for determining the minimal area to be affected by the mine? No mine until there is one! One needn't say what has to be done, only point out what isn't being done. The idea is to keep bidding up the pot, raising the environmental bar Kennecot must meet to go ahead with this mine. It's possible Kennecott might ultimately fold on the Salmon Trout mine and move on to other opportunities, though in the long run, a better outcome might be the development of a low impact mining practice. People are going to seek and get these resources--something needs to be done to be sure there is something left in the aftermath.
And yes, this is where I ask something of you. I don't want to guilt or badger anyone into this, but if you have an hour this weekend, glance through the EIA for this application and identify one or two areas where definite protections for the environment are not specified, then send off an email to wilsonse@michigan.gov identifying these and requesting denial of the application as written based on these. Keep it short, sweet, and to the point.
PDF files of Kennecott's application documents are found here. All you need to look at is the EIA linked at the top of the page. That itself is a long document, but you can manage it by scanning the TOC for an area that may be of special interest to you, scrutinizing the proposals, and citing a shortcoming. If you have questions, contact the Michigan Environmental Council @ 517-487-9539 or by email @ mec.voyager.net.
What happens next? After the 16th, the DEQ will review the application and the comments on it, then, probably by the end of this summer, announce a proposed approval or denial of the application, at which time there will be another round of commenting before a final approval or denial is given. If a mining permit is ultimately denied, another application is sure to be filed, and the process will begin again. Given Kennecott's deep pockets and the size of its potential payoff, this game could go on a long time.
But in this round, there is still one card to deal.
THE RIVER
The Salmon Trout river is the spawning ground for the last population of coaster brook trout along the US shoreline of the Great Lakes. This population consists of about 200 fish that do not interbreed with any other trout and have distinctly shaped, powerful bodies that allow them to chase prey in open water. They weigh anywhere from two to more than ten pounds, whereas stream-dwelling brookies in Michigan rarely grow to one pound.
When the coasters enter the Salmon Trout, they swim though some of the clearest waters in the United States. One method scientists use to measure water turbidity is to clock to the time that an electrical charge takes to jump between two electrodes in the water. The more sediment and other impurities the water contains, the more conductive it is. When testing the Salmon Trout, the technicians had to throw sand into the river to make the current pass between electrodes! This is as clean as water gets.
That water, and the fish it sustains, are parts of the heritage of this region whose loss would notably diminish it--and, I think, us. Without those, the great lakes basin becomes a little less unique, a little less, period. Maintaining those furthers what I see as the most fundamental form of homeland security.
What happens in this case may determine what happens with sulfide mining claims across the country. A lot of eyes are watching this case. If you can do nothing else about the Salmon Trout mine, please add yours.
Tags: Conservation; Michigan; Trout
No comments:
Post a Comment