By 2000, efforts by the government agencies to pull together the RAP were failing and those responsible for the RAP had begun to step back. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided that the only way to get the stalling Buffalo River cleanup moving was to hire a coordinator to focus on implementing the RAP. After putting out a request for bids, the EPA’s Great Lakes National Program Office chose the citizens’ group Friends of the Buffalo Niagara Rivers to play this role. In July 2005, the Friends became the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, and they continued to be the RAP coordinator.

The first task of the new RAP coordinator was to deepen community engagement in the RAP and revitalize the Remedial Advisory Committee. With the assistance of the Remedial Advisory Committee, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and over 30 other governmental and non-governmental agencies and organizations, Riverkeeper re-assessed all beneficial use impairments, revised the delisting criteria, identified data gaps and reviewed needed projects. They then spent considerable time working with stakeholders in the community encouraging them to carry out activities that will help achieve the RAP goals.

Waterkeeper, has successfully spent considerable time pulling together partners to obtain the funding from government and private sources to carry out the assessments needed to address the problems in the area. They are now developing the funding matches to obtain Great Lakes Legacy Act grants for the estimated $60 to $100 million needed to clean up contaminated sediments in the Buffalo River.

Waterkeepers usually work outside of the normal government structures, using testing and technical studies, public exposure of their findings, and legal action, if necessary, to push others to do the cleanup. In this case, however, Waterkeeper has become the one hired by government to coordinate action. Interestingly, the same scientific, outreach and legal skills needed to advocate for action are the same that are most effective in coordinating the cleanup. By leveraging this with their credibility in the community they have been able to pull together a wide range of partners to do the task.

One concern around the Waterkeeper playing this role was whether industry and governments would fully cooperate with them. The fact that the RAP was stagnating and that no on else interested in doing the job meant that the field was open. In addition, the open bidding process lent credibility to the winning organization, who would have rose to the top as the best fit as determined by a fair and competitive process. This meant that those who would not normally be easy partners of a Waterkeeper were willing to give it a try.

The other concern is whether having the Riverkeeper become the official coordinator would interfere with the Riverkeeper’s essential role as advocate for issues throughout the Niagara and Buffalo Rivers. Would the group need to restrain itself on some advocacy in order to maintain the partnerships needed for the AOC cleanup? This has not proven to be the case. They continue their monitoring of the rivers and exposing of problems and continue to be engaged in controversial issues such as proposals for power turbines below the waters of the river, and expanded highways.

Barry Boyer, a law professor and emeritus board member of the Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper, says that “no situation has come up at which the Riverkeeper has been tempted to step back to protect their RAP coordinator role.” He says that they are able to combine the two roles because they always ensure that their advocacy positions are on “sound ground” and because they frequently touch base with others who may oppose their positions.

Taking Action

Jill Spisiak Jedlicka is the Buffalo River Remedial Action Coordinator and Director of Ecological Programs for Buffalo Niagara Riverkeeper. The lessons she has learned from this community-driven RAP implementation process have been the importance of:

• Identifying a local group, individual, or agency that is unequivocally dedicated to the restoration of your AOC to coordinate the implementation;
• Having the courage to lead and take risks. Others will follow, but not down the path of destruction – small decisions and smart decisions build credibility;
• Being creative with in-kind resources. Leverage the hidden existing local investments (sweat equity can build you a lot of in-kind);
• Using the “team of rivals” model: leverage individual passion and commitment to challenge, inspire, mobilize, and collaborate with others who can support or derail your efforts; and
  Reaching out to and educating your local elected officials and agency representatives. Get them out of their offices and onto the water.

The report, Up to the Gills: 2009 Update on Pollution in Great Lakes Fish, analyzes the latest fish advisories published by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment in the Guide to Eating Ontario Sports Fish. It looks at eight species of fish in 13 locations across the Great Lakes. Many categories of fish were found to be somewhat or completely unfit for human consumption. The report also looks at fish advisories over a period of time (2005 to 2009), and finds the situation is not improving.

The report published in 2007 showed that in many places fish consumption advisories had become more severe since 2005, particularly in Lake Ontario. The updated report shows that while some areas and species have improved slightly, most advisories remained severe in the lower Great Lakes.

In Lake Ontario for example, 40% of the advisories examined in this report stated that it was unsafe to eat the affected fish in any quantity. Larger fish typically receive more severe advisories because they are generally older and have accumulated more toxins in their tissue but, in Lake Ontario, even small sizes of fish are receiving the most severe advisories.

Lake Superior has the least severe advisories, compared to Huron and Erie which had severe advisories for the larger sizes of the predatory species. Lake Ontario consumption advisories remained extremely high.

The major chemical contaminants that cause consumption advisories for Great Lakes fish include mercury, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins and furans. Health effects of these chemicals include damage to the nervous, respiratory and immune system, as well as cancer.

Almost 400,000 Canadian anglers fish the Great Lakes every year. The commercial and sport fishing industries are estimated to be worth $2.45 billion a year. While the report highlights the benefits of fish in a healthy balanced diet, it does caution consumers to watch what kinds of fish they eat and from where. It stresses the need to consult the advisories guides before consuming any fish caught in the Great Lakes.

The report makes several recommendations on how to protect public health including: improving the information used in fish advisories; enhancing the delivery of fish advisories to high risk groups; preventing fish contamination advisories by reducing pollution from industry, sewage systems, agriculture and urban runoff; and enhancing the Canada-U.S. response when fish in the Great Lakes are threatened.

The report, Up to the Gills: 2009 Update on Pollution in Great Lakes Fish, is available to download for free at www.environmentaldefence.ca and the Guide to Eating Ontario Sports Fish is available at www.ene.gov.on.ca.

Mike Layton is an author of the report and a Program manager for Environmental Defence. He can be reached by e-mail at mlayton@environmentaldefence.ca

The US EPA and Environment Canada have released
their assessment of the Great Lakes on several indicators.
For much of the report, status is reported as mixed.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

This summer the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada released the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report. The document reports on progress to address several issues facing the Great Lakes, and indicates whether conditions are improving or worsening.

On the whole, the report finds that conditions in the region are mixed. Some areas, are improving, others deteriorating, and conditions range from poor to good.

Human health status is described as “mixed”, though whether this is improving or getting worse is “undetermined”. Similarly, biotic communities are described as of mixed status, and their trajectory undetermined.

However, the report has more information on biotic communities than human health. This failure to more seriously assess the impacts of conditions in the Great Lakes on human health conditions has long been a concern of community activists.

The most negative of the Great Lakes indicators is invasive species, which is given a “poor” status rating and a “deteriorating” trend by the governments.

Contamination is shown as being of “mixed” status and with an improving trend. For the contaminant phosphorus, however, nearshore conditions are found to be “poor” in all lakes except Lake Superior.

The report is produced following the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC), where scientific data is reported and discussed. These conferences pull together scientists, governments and activists from across the Great Lakes region.

Typically, they have been held every two years since 1994. However, in order to save resources, the governments have decided to now hold them every three years. This means that the next conference will be held in 2011 and the next report released in 2012.

To obtain a copy of the State of the Great Lakes 2009 Highlights report go to www.binational.net/solec/intro_e.html.

Supported by a grant from U.S. EPA, The Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network provides a free and informative telephone seminar series on issues around green chemistry. Great Lakes United provides technical and administrative support for this network. Here’s a recap of what we heard this summer:

» In June, Joel Tickner, Director at the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production described the work of the GC3—the Green Chemistry in Commerce Council—a business-to-business network dedicated to advancing safer chemicals and products. Dr. Tickner explained that companies who want to green their chemical products have to deal with many of the same economic, regulatory, and technical realities of implementing green chemistry and environmental design. GC3 steps in as a catalyst and forum for these firms. Through dialogue, the GC3 moves to implement green chemistry and green engineering solutions, promote education and information exchange on green processes and best practices, and identify existing information on toxics and hazards, risks, and alternatives. They do this in the frame of Anasta’s and Warner’s 12 principles of green chemistry and the tenets of the US EPA’s Design for Environment program.
The GC3 is online at www.greenchemistryandcommerce.org

» In July, Mark Rossi, research director at Clean Production Action, outlined the “Green Screen for Safer Chemicals” a tool that uses the principles of green chemistry to define chemicals that exist in products and processes today, how to measure a chemical’s potential for harm all along its lifecycle, and how to avoid or minimize these chemicals by substituting safer ones. Rossi emphasized the focus on human health effects in this process. Cancer, reproductive harm, and developmental harm raise red flags when evaluating whether a chemical should be used or restricted. Governments and environmental managers already used the Green Screen tool to guide the substitution of less hazardous and toxic chemicals. Moreover, the Green Screen is one of the first green chemistry metrics created; this is an important step in the process towards identifying the bad and bringing forward the good.
You can look at the Green Screen tool at www.cleanproduction.org/Greenscreen.php

» In August, Richard Liroff. Executive Director of the Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN). explained the changing world of business governance and ethics as companies strive to respond to consumer demands for safe and environmentally responsible products. Liroff notes that the market has already spoken on many hazard-containing products—large multinational retailers are moving away from carrying products containing Bisphenol A and by doing so contributing to the phasing out of PVC and brominated flame retardants. The IEHN guides investor and company shareholders so they can hold companies accountable for environmentally responsible chemical policies. The IEHN focuses on open dialogue and transparency; shareholders and firms look at the facts about the chemicals in products and the best pathway to safer products, hazard substitution, and more economically and environmentally sustainable companies.
You can find out more about the IEHN at www.greenbiz.com

The Great Lakes Green Chemistry Network Phone Seminar Series continues this fall. To find out more about the call schedule, to download past presentations, to review green chemistry resources, and to learn more about the network, you can visit www.glgc.org.

The $475 million investment nearly doubles U.S. federal
spending on Great Lakes priorities. The money will be
spent on cleaning up toxic pollution, fighting invasive
species, restoring habitat, non-point pollution
issues, and monitoring results.
(click image to enlarge in new window)

The Environmental Protection Agency just completed a series of public meetings to collect public comment and determine the best way to implement President Obama’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

A total of eight meetings took place in cities across the Great Lakes. The meetings were well attended by the public, NGOs, and state and federal agencies.

Cameron Davis, special advisor to the U.S. EPA, set the tone before a full auditorium in East Lansing, Michigan, by calling for “urgency, action, and accountability.”

“We know the lakes are hurting, it is time for action,” Davis said.

In Rochester, New York, a packed room voiced strong support for the new commitment to Great Lakes restoration. Commenters stressed accountability, as well as the need to address tributary and watershed deterioration, to coordinate with Canada, and to access the expertise at the local level.

The EPA hopes to maximize the effectiveness of the initiative by hearing from those with on-the-ground knowledge of the priorities in restoring the Great Lakes and what might be missing from the draft outline.

Comments geared toward the draft were consistent and solutions-based. Amongst the comments, a theme of collaboration, public education, health, and prevention of invasive species resonated.

The Restoration Initiative aims to fund projects through a grant process. Projects that tackle problems such as toxic pollution, invasive species, near-shore health and non-point source pollution, habitat and wildlife protection, and evaluation that are considered “shovel-ready” will be considered strong contenders.

This funding is also intended to be a new source of funds. It is not intended to supplant existing resources.

The amount to be allocated in the 2010 budget is still being fine tuned. The House of Representatives has passed the initiative at $475 million, while the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $400 million. Once the full EPA budget is approved the total amount of the Initiative will be determined. The total is expected to be between $400 and $475 million. This investment increases federal Great Lakes environmental funding to about $1 billion annually.

These funds are the first installment of a $5 billion dollar Great Lakes trust fund that Obama promised during last year’s presidential election. Eleven agency and cabinet organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Homeland Security, for example, head-up the development and implementation of the Initiative.

If you would like to learn more about the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, visit www.epa.gov/glnpo/glri. The new grant proposals to restore the Great Lakes are being accepted this fall, with over half of the 2010 total federal funding to be allocated at the local and state level.

Melinda Koslow is the Regional Campaign Manager for the Safeguards Program at the National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes Regional Center. She can be reached at koslowm@nwf.org.

In June, the federal and provincial governments announced that they were jointly giving $7 million to Nipigon and $9 million to Red Rock to upgrade their sewage treatment systems.

Though the principle of local contribution towards clean-up costs makes sense in most cases, governments need to make sure that their guidelines have enough flexibility to allow them to drop the local payment component when a community is suffering an economic crisis.

Being in dire economic straits should not mean that a community also has to live with the stress of not being able to clean up its environment and force its residents to continue to endure the health threats that contamination problems pose. In fact, a failure to act on pollution can exacerbate economic problems, discouraging positive population growth and encouraging residents and businesses to leave town.

Debate over who pays, and how, is the most frequently recurring reason that municipal infrastructure upgrades and clean up of contaminated sediments are stalled. These are both critical for the restoration of most Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes. The principle usually used by senior governments – federal, provincial and state – is that local sources must pay a substantial part of the required money.

In Canada, for example, the standard formula is that the federal and provincial governments each pay one-third of the costs of these projects. The other third, they argue, should be paid by the municipality or local polluters. This requirement usually leads to substantial delays, if not total stalls, in the project.

This can become an insurmountable problem in areas suffering severe economic stress, such as Nipigon Bay on the north shore of Lake Superior. Major progress has been made on implementing the Remedial Action Plan, but the outstanding problem is the sewage treatment systems in Nipigon and Red Rock. With this funding Nipigon can finally complete their clean up efforts.

Ecojustice launched the suit in November, 2007 on behalf of Great Lakes United and Mining Watch Canada. On April 23 2009 the Canadian Federal Court issued an order requiring the federal government to immediately begin publicly reporting mining pollution data from 2006 onward to the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI).

The strongly worded decision described the government’s decision-making pace as “glacial” and chastised the government for turning a “blind eye” to the issue and dragging its feet for “more than 16 years”.

In response to the Canadian Minister of the Environment’s failure to require reporting, the Honourable Mr. Justice Russell concluded, “the result is that the people of Canada do not have a national inventory of releases of pollutants that will allow them to assess the state of the Canadian environment and take whatever measures they feel are appropriate to protect the environment and facilitate the protection of human health.”

In contrast, since 1998, the U.S. government has required mining companies to report all pollutants under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), the U.S. equivalent of the NPRI. In 2005, the 72 mines in the U.S. reporting to the TRI released more than 500 million kilograms of toxic substances to mine tailings and waste rock. This accounted for 27% of all U.S. pollutants reported. The addition of the Canadian data will give us a more complete picture of the mining threat in the Great Lakes.

Toxics leak through tailings ponds walls and evaporate into the air on an ongoing basis. As climate change threatens to bring more frequent and increasingly intense storms, the potential for tailings ponds’ walls to collapse increases. This means toxic tailings rushing out into the environment and into the lakes. Such devastating collapses of tailings ponds have already occurred in Europe and in the coal mining area of the U.S.

The decision also means that the public will have to be told about the devastating toxic discharges to the massive tailings ponds created by mining the tar sands in Alberta. The product of tar sands development—one of the largest industrial undertakings in the world—is being touted as the source of oil for proposed expansions of oil refineries throughout the Great Lakes in locations such as Superior, Wisconsin, Gary, Indiana, Detroit, and Sarnia.

Now that we will have knowledge on the toxic contents of these tailings ponds and rock piles on both sides of the Great Lakes basin, we will be more capable of pressuring for action to protect the Great Lakes from these threats.

Environment Canada has stated that they will move quickly to implement the judge’s decision.

The partnership between volunteers and the USCG is unique. In the event of a spill, volunteers are trained to assess shoreline damage and identify sensitive areas so that spill response resources can be deployed quickly, while reducing environmental damage.

The first twelve hours of a spill are the most critical. Current manpower resources through the USCG are limited on the St. Lawrence River increasing the potential for significant damage. The new program increases the number of people able to respond to a spill, assess the damage, and then deploy the necessary resources in a timely manner. Volunteers also provide important local knowledge about the River, its flows and its sensitive areas. This sort of detailed knowledge is helpful to Coast Guard staff who are typically only stationed in the region for three years, before being transferred to a new location.

The launch of the program comes in the wake of the San Francisco oil spill in the fall of 2007. The spill occurred when a container ship hit the Oakland Bay Bridge, releasing 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel into the surrounding waters. Concerned local citizens arrived on the scene to offer any help they could, but were unable to be utilized to their full extent. The resources needed to train volunteers in order to safely assist with response to the spill were limited and the training extensive. Had volunteers been pre-trained, the spill extent could have been assessed more quickly and resources deployed for faster containment.

After the first year of the St. Lawrence program, Save The River has trained 20 volunteers and will be adding more volunteers to their program in 2009. Volunteers attend a two hour training session with Save The River and United States Coast Guard staff, where they learn the role of volunteers in the spill response plan and safety precautions necessary when assessing spill extent and shoreline damage. Volunteers are also taught how to assess shoreline damage and report that information back to United States Coast Guard staff in a timely manner to reduce spill response time.

This program is the only one of its kind in the Great Lakes region. The unique partnership created between Save The River and the United States Coast Guard has allowed a citizens’ group to be a part of spill response planning and enabled local citizens to better protect the place they call home.

Sarah Walsh is program manager with Save The River, a non-profit environmental organization located on the outlet of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River. She can be reached at
sarah@savetheriver.org

But what does it mean to be delisted?

As we work to meet a clean up objective that ensures the area is “fishable, swimmable and drinkable”, isn’t it reasonable for the public to make the assumption that we have met those targets when we announce that the toxic hotspot is being delisted? Of course it is. Yet, even when delisted, communities still face fishing advisories and the water must be treated before it is drinkable.

Fishable?

The first area of concern to be delisted was Collingwood Harbour in Ontario in 1994. Fifteen years later, the provincial government’s guide to sports fish consumption still calls on people to avoid or limit their consumption of fish caught in the harbour.

These warnings are the result of the levels of mercury, PCBs, mirex, pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins and furans measured in the fish. For example, the Ministry of the Environment asserts that “sensitive populations” should not eat any pink salmon or whitefish that are over 45 centimetres (18 inches) in length caught in Collingwood Harbour.

How can Collingwood Harbour be considered ‘cleaned up’ if the fish are still contaminated with a toxic soup of chemicals and metals?

An Area of Concern can be officially delisted if it is determined that the contamination of the fish is no longer a result of local sources. Instead, the fish consumption advisory is as a result of contaminants washing in from the lake or dropping from the air from sources outside of the area.

When the announcement was made in July 2006 that the lower Oswego River in New York State was no longer an area of concern, Dr. Christopher De Rosa, then Director of the Division of Toxicology for the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, urged the governments to be cautious in their announcements so as to not mislead the public into thinking that the waters are now truly “fishable” without limitation. He pointed out that we should still be warning people to limit their fish consumption.

Swimmable and drinkable?

Severn Sound, which is in a major cottage and tourist area in southern Georgian Bay in Ontario, was delisted in January 2003. The report that justified the delisting said that the objective for swimmability “can be considered to have been met.”

This conclusion was reached despite the fact that the same report stated all swimming areas in Georgian Bay Islands continue to be posted “swim at own risk” and that the area off the Coldwater River wharf is posted “No Swimming: Contaminated Water.” Midland Beach bacteria levels exceeded provincial standards in 5 to 10 percent of the samples. In other words the area was delisted despite the fact that it is only swimmable in some places, some of the time.

Similarly, the drinkable goal doesn’t mean that you can go and drink straight from the waters. For example, Michigan’s guidelines for delisting state that the “drinkable” goal is met if the water is safe to drink after the use of standard water treatment methods. A similar criterion for the drinking water goal is found in all jurisdictions.

What needs to happen after delisting?

We must be cautious when we delist an area of concern. We must make sure that our celebratory news announcements are tempered with cautions to the residents that they should not assume that the waters are now “fishable, swimmable and drinkable” without restriction.

In addition, at the same time as we celebrate the delisting of the toxic hotspot, we need to publicly commit ourselves – as governments, industry, environmental groups and the public who worked on the RAP – to continue with our work in at least three areas.

Firstly, we must work in the broader Great Lakes arena for the elimination of pollution sources beyond our area of concern that are affecting the local area. As Collingwood Harbour demonstrates, contamination doesn’t follow city limits. Our communities are interconnected and only by eliminating pollution can we truly overcome the toxic burden.

Secondly, we must work for continued improvement of the area so that the environment is enhanced beyond current conditions. Meeting the minimum standards of cleanliness is no different than celebrating a ‘C’ grade on a report card. Delisting isn’t the end of a journey, it’s the start of a new effort to truly revitalize a community that has turned its toxic tide. We must take advantage of the momentum delisting creates.

Finally, we must be strong watchdogs to ensure that there is no backsliding and that no new threats are introduced to the former area of concern. Delisting isn’t immunity. New threats are constantly emerging. We must use the knowledge and experience gained through the past to safeguard us against the threats of the future, and to act swiftly when pollution problems re-emerge.

Delisting is a time for celebration. But this must not be blind revelry; it must include cautions and long-term commitments. The pride of the community and the effort of the people whose hard work made the celebration possible deserve nothing less.

Due to rich geologic formations and a  high demand for metal, the Great Lakes region is facing a potential metallic sulfide and uranium mining boom. Mineral exploration companies are actively pursuing mineral leases near Lake Michigan and around Lake Superior throughout Minnesota, Michigan and Ontario.  Metallic sulfide and uranium mining have a poor track record of significant water pollution and human health implications, leading many citizens to believe the Great Lakes an inappropriate location for a new mining district.

Metallic sulfide mining (hardrock mining) is the mining of metals, such as nickel and copper, which are embedded in a sulfide ore body. When sulfides are unearthed and exposed to water and air, a chemical reaction generates sulfuric acid that can leach into the surrounding environment. This acid mine drainage is a problem because it can introduce toxic heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, and mercury, into waterways. This is widely held as one of the most important and widespread sources of pollution associated with the mining industry throughout the world.

Uranium mining also has a poor global track record. Although nuclear power is being considered as an alternative energy source to help decrease greenhouse gas emissions, there are many risks associated with the mining and processing of uranium. Mining and exploration can result in the spread of radioactive dust particles through air and water. Exposure to radioactive elements from drinking water, food supplies, or radon gas can cause lung cancer, bone cancer and numerous reproductive problems.

Not only do uranium and metallic sulfide mining pose human health hazards and threaten freshwater, but many of these prospective mines threaten some of the last, and most beloved, public lands throughout the Great Lakes region.

The Places Under Threat

Minnesota’s north shore is a paradise of waterfalls, cliffs and rocky beaches.  Mining corporations are heavily exploring the Arrowhead region located between Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  The area also hosts Voyageurs National Park. The Canadian Polymet Mining Corporation has proposed a mine called the Northmet Project and, according to the company, the proposed mine will generate acid drainage that will likely require perpetual treatment.

Numerous other mining companies are exploring throughout Minnesota. These potential mines threaten numerous wetlands, the headwaters of the Mississippi River and Lake Superior tributaries.

The granite cliffs and rocky coastline of Lake Superior’s north shore of Ontario date back to some of the earliest days of the Earth and are home to the striking Pukaswa National Park and Lake Superior Provincial Park.  Mining corporations are exploring extensively throughout the area from Thunder Bay, South of Lake Nipigon to Sault St. Marie.  Although mining is part of the heritage of this region, most mineral deposits explored today are of a very low grade. This exploration of deeper and lower grade ores in metallic sulfide bodies causes not only a greater disturbance to ecosystems, but also a greater dependence on technology to control or contain the chemicals produced or used. If improper technology is used, or the technological systems fail, damaging consequences such as soil erosion, air pollution and contamination of surface and groundwater can occur. Concern for the health of the Great Lakes is exacerbated when considering the cumulative impacts of potential mining along the north and south shores of Lake Superior.

Lake Superior’s south shore runs through the states of Wisconsin and Michigan.  Due to the introduction of relatively strict mining legislation, there are currently no companies active in Wisconsin. However, pollution, like water, does not obey political boundaries and mines proposed in neighboring Michigan could be harmful to waterways shared across borders.

Although Michigan’s Upper Peninsula has a history of iron mining with some resulting acid mine drainage, metallic sulfide and uranium mining are fairly new prospects in the region. One project of concern is Aquila Resource’s (Canada) proposed gold and zinc metallic sulfide mine that threatens sacred Native American burial grounds and the Shakey Lakes Savanna. Pine and oak barrens and five distinctly different savanna ecosystems define these beautiful public recreational lands. The ore body also lies between both states of Wisconsin and Michigan and along the Menominee River that drains into Lake Michigan.

Another threat to the Great Lakes in Michigan is Anglo-Australian mining giant Kennecott/Rio Tinto’s proposed Eagle Mine project, found in the Huron Mountains on the Yellow Dog Plains.  Kennecott/Rio Tinto is a global mining giant with a reputation as a bad neighbor. It is the first to apply for a permit to operate a metallic sulfide mine under Michigan’s weak new mining law.

The Yellow Dog Plains, part of the Escanaba River State Forest, are surrounded by many state, federal, and private preservation areas, including the McCormick Wilderness. Kennecott proposes to fence off 120 acres of public land for roughly 40 years in order to complete the project.  The company also proposes to blast under the Salmon Trout River, a blue ribbon trout stream and tributary of Lake Superior which is only 10 miles away. The company also proposes to use the Eagle Rock outcrop, sacred to the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC), as the portal to the proposed mine. Adding to the potential cumulative impact to Lake Superior, many other mining companies are exploring the region as well.
teresa@savethewildup.org