Following reporting by Headwaters that Rio Tinto’s original ore hauling transportation route for its Eagle Mine called for the company to access existing rail networks and avoiding trucking transportation through city streets, the company now has a response.
The original plan [accessed by clicking here] called for the company to truck ore down county roads AAA, 510, and roughly 20 miles down 550, taking them to the LS&I railroad, north of Marquette. This original route would have allowed the company to avoid trucking through the Upper Peninsula’s busiest and most populated travel corridor: through city streets in Marquette, Negaunee, and Ishpeming, and a number of townships.
According to the company’s Manager of External Affairs, Matt Johnson, that original transportation plan has been clarified and amended, allowing Rio Tinto to truck its ore through the three cities, to the same active rail line in Humboldt, north of US-41/28. A look at this change [see link below] shows the company is not currently permitted to truck ore to the Humboldt Mill itself. Any new plans to truck the ore to the mill would likely have to be amended with the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
According to DNRE geologist Joe Maki, who led the review of Rio Tinto’s Eagle Mine application, the original permit has not been physically changed. On June 21, 2006, Maki sent Rio Tinto a letter asking for clarification on 91 questions related to the application. In October the company responded to those questions, including a brief explanation of its established transportation route.
“We keep the original application intact the way it was delivered to us,” said Maki. Any changes to that plan was “kept at the end of the application.” Unfortunately, Maki noted that change is no longer available on the agency’s website and may only be locally accessible at the DNRE’s KI Sawyer office.
“As it stands today we will scope out opportunities to use existing public roads to bring ore to the mine to the mill, but obviously, if there are other options available that are feasible and prudent for us to pursue we would take a look at that,” said Johnson.
“As it stands today we’re moving forward on working with local agencies and units of government, and the community, and utilizing existing roadways and improving existing roadways, whether from a structural point of view, environmental, and especially safety.”
The amended route means the company would still access the active rail line, but instead of doing so where it crosses County Road 550, north of Marquette, Rio Tinto would have its hauling trucks travel an additional (roughly) 30 miles to Humboldt Township, to access the line there. The additional trucking, at the company’s estimated 50 round-trips every day (at 365 days, a year), would increase trucking miles to over 6 million additional miles if the mine were opened for six years, and over 9 million extra trucking miles if the mine were opened for Rio Tinto’s originally-planned eight years.
When Rio Tinto clarified and changed its original hauling plan in October 2006 plans to use the Humboldt Mill weren’t yet on the table and the company planned on directly shipping its ore to a smelter in Ontario. This means when the plan was approved in 2007 Rio Tinto planned on driving far more than 50 trucks daily through the busy Marquette to Ishpeming corridor to load the unprocessed ore onto a rail car to ship to a smelter.
Despite this planned high volume of traffic, it wasn’t until Rio Tinto’s plans to build the 22-mile “Woodland Road”, over three years later, that local elected officials expressed concern about ore hauling truck traffic through the busy Marquette to Ishpeming corridor.
So can the company amend its permit back to the original plan and access the rail line north of Marquette (or extend the rail line to the Eagle Mine site) instead of 30 miles away, in Humboldt Township?
“It’s not feasible to access the rail for us in the Marquette area and, so, the most feasible and prudent opportunity for rail access was Humboldt,” said Johnson. “And we looked at all those opportunities and that’s what became feasible.”
“Before the Humboldt Mill became available we were looking at different railheads within Marquette County, so whether that was near Marquette or out in Humboldt. So in our mind the rail head in Humboldt was feasible and that’s the concept that we’re looking at.”
At a recent Marquette County Road Commission meeting, county commissioner Mike Quayle suggested that rail shipping would protect public safety more than current plans to drive through Marquette.
“Rail transportation, in my opinion, should be the first consideration to avoid safety issues now coming to the foreground and will help save the current road systems which we all know this type of hauling is very hard on,” said Quayle.
Johnson said as they move forward they would have more answers as to their eventual hauling route.
“We’re evaluating our transportation options,” said Johnson.
Asked what he thinks about County Road Commission suggestions of possibly using federal taxpayer money to fund the haul road as a public road, Johnson replied, “I don’t have anything to comment.”
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.
Wisconsin Senator Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, has rejected compromises to the proposed Wisconsin Iron Mining ... 
Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, showed his political skill Sunday, seeming to know just what ... ![The Penokee Range as seen looking west from Corrigan's Lookout in Iron County, May 2008. Upson Lake is in the middle of the photo.]](http://headwatersnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Upson-Lake-in-Penokee-Hills-Wisconsin-150x150.jpg "Upson Lake, in Penokee Hills, Wisconsin")
Wendy Thiede, a resident of Iron County, Wisconsin, published a good article on Wisconsin's controversial ... 
Hello Eds:
I typed this comment about 3 hours ago and it disappeared …..
Hm. I’ll try again.
There is no reason to believe Matt’s talk about an “Approved route”. There is no such thing.
1. As you can see in the original application the route was incomplete, thus not acceptable, because it went only to a railhead “In the vicinity of Marquette”. We would have a hard time approving that on our airline ticket eh.
2. I have seen no official amendment. Maybe they slipped one under the door but not through the required procedure, which is to submit, then go through public hearings and comments, then a review by a qualified body, then approval or rejection, then a public announcement.
3. Neither was there the required Environmental Impact study and report. The study has yet to be done – a stiff project.
4. As you know by now – without that permit there can be no mining permit, and no mining-related activities such as we saw on WLUCTV6 last evening. It is illegal’ brazen disregard for the law. If in doubt – read Part 632.
Any discussion of alternative routes at this time is meaningless – more bluster promoted by Big K.
What say you Matt – point by point ?
Thank you for freedom of speech.
DAD (Gabe designated that name for me. Not my idea.)
(Note to Eds: Will you please insert at least that one line from the original app? Thanks)
Mr. Parker, I presume?
Here is the link to Rio Tinto’s ORIGINAL transportation plan: http://headwatersnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Rio-Tintos-Ore-Hauling-Plan-in-Mine-Permit-Application-page-21.pdf
Here’s a link to their AMENDED transportation plan: http://headwatersnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Rio-Tinto-change-to-original-transportation-plan.pdf
Essentially, they changed from hauling ore to a rail line north of Marquette, avoiding truck traffic through city streets, to a plan to drive through city streets and access the same line in Humboldt Township.
Keep in mind that they made this change before the Eagle Mine application was approved, so it may not be the case they needed a formal amendment, as one can’t amend a permit that doesn’t exist yet.
Gabe: Once again my unfinished comments disappeared. Maybe there’s a leak!
I’ll try again.
I have and you have a copy of the original application. You attached the Ore Transport section.. It was incomplete and without the required EIS.
You also attached their purported “amendment” in which they tried to amend the application – not the non-existent permit.
That attempt was also incomplete and without an EIS, and it was not presented via the specified procedures – so it was not acceptable, on all counts.
You know the rest – no permit for a haul road, no mining permit, no mining-related activities, (read 632 folks) , defiance of the law,
no reaction from the regulators, strong penalties prescribed by 632 for deceptive presentations in the permitting processes – including revocation of ALL prior agreements. ALL OF THEM.
Let us not forget the problem of poor mine design and probable mine collapse. Kennecott responds to those charges with meaningless corporate boilerplate, refusing to face the charges categorically, obviously unwilling to hang out their dirty laundry.
The sooner we throw the bums out we – those still living this side of iron bars – will be able to reorganize and make jobs in a responsible mining operation, lasting much longer than eight years.
Thanks for printing, please spread the word around,
DAD