Citizens Pack Hearing to Oppose Rio Tinto Road

Download Article as PDF

Hundreds of citizens packed a conference center in Ishpeming to give their opinions on a proposed “County Road 595” mine hauling project, in western Marquette County.  Of 61 speakers, a majority – 34 – (including this author) criticized the road project, with most support for the project coming from area politicians and industry representatives.

Military veteran James Haun, from Skanee, speaks out against the "County Road 595" mine hauling road; Photo: Chauncey Moran

Bill Malmsten, an Ishpeming resident and president of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, summed up a sentiment commonly heard throughout the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality hearing.

“I’m pretty sure that there isn’t a person in this room who doesn’t understand that the real purpose of the County Road 595 proposal is not what’s stated in the wetland application, that it’s no coincidence that 595 would start at Kennecott’s mill and end at Kennecott’s mine, that’s it’s no coincidence that the 595 route follows almost the exact same route as the previously proposed mine haul road,” said Malmsten.

“The 595 proposal is an attempt by Marquette County officials to assist Kennecott in circumventing wetland regulations to construct the shortest possible haul road between the mine and the mill.”

The 595 proposal is similar to a previous “Woodland Road” proposal submitted by Kennecott, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, two years ago.  That original proposal was withdrawn after criticism from the federal government and revived later in 2010 by Marquette County officials as “County Road 595.”  595, like the Woodland Road, has been designed by the company, although the Marquette County Road Commission (MCRC) is now applying for the permit.  Rio Tinto is currently approved to haul ore from Big Bay to Marquette on County Road 550, through Marquette, and west on US-41 to the company’s Humboldt processing mill.

James Haun, a military veteran living in Skanee, regaled the audience with a short story of a life-changing event that happened to him in the jungles of Vietnam.

“Thirty-four and a half years ago I was sitting in a bunker in Vietnam with another man that came from this area,” said Haun.  “He told me about this area, an area where you could drink out of the streams, which I have many times, where you could catch a brook trout . . . how beautiful and remote it was.  My pursuit led me here.  I told him if I survived – I do not know if he did – that I would be here the next year.  And I was, and I’ve only missed one year in my life being up here, I loved it so.  Eleven years ago I retired up here.  I hope that he’s been able to come here too.”

Doug Sweeney, an energetic self-described “capitalist,” Republican, and military veteran, said he is “in favor of economic development for Marquette County,” but is “absolutely opposed” to 595.

“The simple fact remains that the vast majority of people that spoke in favor of this are going to benefit economically,” said Sweeney.  “To put it right through that pristine wilderness is an absolute travesty and I’m adamantly opposed to it.

Jim Sodergren, a retired Marquette County planning commissioner and county treasurer, supported 595, dismissed concerns like Sweeney’s that the area would be harmed by the road project.

“In Marquette County 28% of the land is classified as wetlands,” said Sodergren.  “We don’t need any more swamps.”

Gene Champagne, from Big Bay, said the county never expressed a need for a road like 595 until Rio Tinto’s submitted its Woodland Road plan in 2010.

“The only difference between this road and the Woodland Road is a couple of vowels and a couple of feet or miles,” said Champagne.  “I realize there’s probably a lot of people in this room who favor this road but I betcha every single one of those people knows this is a haul road for Kennecott at the same time, even if they don’t say so publicly.”

Champagne’s claim is supported by recent correspondence between the MCRC and the DEQ.

On December 2, 2011, the DEQ’s transportation specialist, Jerry Fulcher, asked the MCRC’s Jim Iwanicki, “I thought I heard you mention that the county has long planned on building a road west of the Silver Lake basin.  Do you have any county master plan or road commission minutes that would show this?”

In a response Iwanicki said, “I said I do not have a long range plan from the county planning commission on a road west of Dead River Dam system.” [Emphasis in the original]

Reggie Durant, a resident of Marquette Township who lives on Rio Tinto’s approved hauling route, said he is opposed to the 595 project and isn’t concerned if the company hauls ore on its approved route through Marquette.  Durant said he “frequently” sees heavy truck traffic related to the Cliffs’ iron ore mine, We Energies’ power plant, and heavy logging trucks.

“Not once have I encountered these trucks driving in an unsafe manner,” said Durant.  “Consideration by the State of Michigan should be given to holding Kennecott/Rio Tinto to the original plan of using [550] as a haul road to a rail head.”

Rio Tinto’s originally hauling plan was to use County Road 550 to haul ore to a railhead north of Marquette, avoiding hauling through major population centers.  This was changed to trucking the ore through Marquette, a plan approved by the DEQ in 2007.  All of the speakers at the hearing who stated they live along the current hauling route expressed opposition to the 595 project.

Rochelle Dale said she understands “things are complicated” and there are safety issues with any ore hauling route.  Although Dale lives off of County Road 510 – one of Rio Tinto’s ore hauling options – she is opposed to the 595 road proposal.

“By not wanting the road to be 550 and into Marquette, it’s like those people in Marquette who are for the mine, but they don’t want to see those trucks, they don’t want that truck traffic, so let’s put it over here, we don’t see it, we can forget about it,” said Dale.  “I think that we need to consider that there are things more important than the dollar.”

Many of the comments in support of the 595 hauling road came from politicians, most of them speaking, in succession, at the opening of the hearing.  Of 27 comments in support of the project, 8 came from politicians or their representatives, and 5 from representatives of logging and mining companies, like Plum Creek and Rio Tinto.  These, as well as comments by several individuals representing economic booster groups or committees, largely paraphrased the 595 application’s project purpose, a key component of what the DEQ must consider when reviewing the project.

The 595 project statement, paraphrased in nearly two-dozen comments supporting the haul road:

“ . . .  to construct a primary county north-south road that 1.) connects and improves emergency, commercial, industrial and recreational access to a somewhat isolated but key industrial, commercial and recreational area in northwest Marquette County to US-41; and 2.) reduces truck travel from this area through Marquette County population centers.”

One of the more interesting of these stock comments came from county sheriff Michael Lovelace.  “It’s going to open up the area to recreation, there’s going to be hunting, fishing, mountain biking, skiing, camping and, maybe meth labs,” said Lovelace.

George Lindquist, a hunter and resident along County Road 510, disagreed with some of the claims that the 595 hauling proposal would benefit recreational users and enhance public safety.

“Safety has been one of the things brought up here many times over,” said Lindquist.  “When you get a fifty-five mile-an-hour road this narrow, you’re going to have problems.  There isn’t room on the road to pull off to park on the side of this road.  So, how is that benefiting outdoors people, how is that benefiting recreation, how is that benefiting anybody getting anywhere when you can’t stop on the side of this road?”

Dr. Alan Olson, from Marquette seemed to agree with Lindquist that the safety argument in support of the hauling road is not fully justified.

“Maybe we should suggest paving the Triple A and the Peshekee so that everybody that goes into what would cease to be a wilderness area could have the convenience of being hauled out of there when they got lost or hurt or whatever,” said Olson.

“That isn’t the purpose of a wilderness area.  A wilderness serves a purpose, in my mind, of healing human beings.  It heals the mind.”

Only one politician at the hearing did not support the 595 hauling road.  While Powell Township supervisor Daryl Wilcox said he is “not against the road,” his comments were critical of the plan.  Wilcox said the township passed a unanimous resolution expressing concern that County Road 550, the main road connecting Big Bay with the city of Marquette, could suffer if 595 is built, causing commercial traffic to completely bypass Big Bay.

“If this mine is so good for everybody, and 595 is so good for everybody, make 595 go somewhere, don’t just make it go to the Kennecott Mine,” Wilcox said.  ”I’m not against the road . . . but as it stands it’s a haul road.”

Kirk Larsen, one of few speakers neutral on the project said he has concerns that a huge gravel pit will be built along the 595 route, changing the wilderness character of the area.

“Getting away from the rest of the world, that’s going to be harder and harder to do now,” Larsen said.

Lindquist, the hunter, expressed concern that public funds would be used to help plan, build, and maintain the road, if built.

“If this road is so important for access, for recreation, for timber, for all these other reasons besides mining, why has so little money gone into the Peshekee Grade all these years,” said Lindquist.  “The county, the road commission is putting a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of effort into this with no guarantee of any outcome.  This is taxpayer’s money.”

According to the MCRC, $83 million is needed in order to repair existing county roads and bridges, while 60% of county road infrastructure is in need of repair.  Road commission board member David Hall, speaking at a Monday meeting, said Upper Peninsula road funding is set to take a “shellacking,” with further cuts expected soon.

As of February 6, the county has spent at least $51,288.31 working to get the haul road project permitted.  According to the 595 application, the county would also be responsible for maintenance of the road.

Other costs to the public include potential Michigan Category A funding for upgrades of the final north and south legs of the proposed haul road not covered in the 595 application.  County Road 601, which connects Rio Tinto’s Humboldt Mill with M-95 is expected to receive $1.9 million in funding, while upgrading the “Triple A” road from the Eagle Mine site to where 595 would start, would likely be eligible for this funding if the 595 plan is approved.

Harry Smith, a retired miner, echoed Lindquist’s funding concerns.

“I have a problem with the Woodland Road – 595 – the reason being I think Kennecott should pay for their hauling and not the taxpayers of Marquette County,” said Smith.

The public can comment on the County Road 595 hauling plan by writing the DEQ at: MDEQ 420 5th St. Gwinn, MI 49841; e-mailing Virginia Pennala, at PENNALAV@michigan.gov; or submitting comments online at the DEQ’s comment page (once at the page, type in the file number 11-52-0075 on the left panel and select “Search”).

Readers can view application information at the DEQ’s website.

Other commenting options are detailed at the bottom of the Lake Superior Mining News’ posting on the project.

This post was written by

Gabriel Caplett – who has written 106 posts on Headwaters - Community Journalism for the Great Lakes.

Gabriel Caplett is a writer and market farmer from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

Send an Email