EPA to Respond to Levin, Stabenow's Rio Tinto Road Request | Headwaters

EPA to Respond to Levin, Stabenow’s Rio Tinto Road Request

Some political supporters of Rio Tinto may be disappointed to learn that the Environmental Protection Agency will have oversight of the company’s ore hauling project, part of its Eagle Mine, whether local government or the company applies for the permits.

In January the Marquette County Board of Commissioners sent a letter to federal representatives asking to “please inquire on Marquette County’s behalf on the length of the review process and why a public application for a new public road is being considered as an extension of a private road application that was filed by a private company.”

The letter, signed by Chairman Charles Bergdahl, claimed that a new ore hauling road would “provide additional recreational opportunities to the public as well as provide a direct benefit to the timber, mining, and gravel industries.”

Several weeks later Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow forwarded the county’s request on to EPA Director Lisa Jackson.

According to Melanie Haveman, an environmental review specialist for the EPA, the answer to these questions is simple:

“I explained the 90 days of review [for state regulators]. Once we issue a comment letter they have 90 days to address those concerns. I made it clear we are reviewing county road 595 as a new project.”

Haveman said a response letter will be sent to Levin and Stabenow within the next week or two.

A Memorandum of Agreement between the state of Michigan and the federal government requires the EPA to follow a specific timeline when reviewing any major project in Michigan subject to Clean Water Act wetland regulations. Because the road project, alternately called the Woodland Road and County Road 595, would require the destruction of a significant amount of wetlands and necessitate a huge amount of fill material, the EPA would have considerable oversight of the project.

According to Haveman the Memorandum of Agreement “sets a level of impacts to waters [over 10,000 cubic yards of fill material] and this is way above that threshold.”

Last March, in a letter to the DNRE, the EPA expressed concerns with Rio Tinto’s road project due to its likely impact on wetlands, wildlife, and water quality; and a project statement that dodged the primary reason the company is trying to build the new road: “to haul ore between the Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company mine site and the Humboldt Mill processing site.” The EPA explained the company had to address these deficiencies or apply for a Section 404 Clean Water Act permit with the Army Corps of Engineers. Rio Tinto decided not to modify its project at the time.

Additionally, according to the Army Corps, “if the road is required to connect the proposed nickel mine at Eagle Rock with the milling operation and tailings disposal facility at Humboldt, these actions should be evaluated under one project . . .our regulations require a holistic view of a project, and the public and the process are best served by evaluating projects in their entirety.”

According to Haveman, even if Marquette County applies for permits for Rio Tinto’s road project this time around the project will still have to meet the same requirements as it did when it was called the Woodland Road.

“The review will be the same, the same level of review,” said Haveman.

Haveman says the state can choose to issue a permit for Rio Tinto’s road over objections from the EPA. However, “if the state issues a permit over the federal objection the applicant would also have to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a separate federal permit, which they are allowed to do.”

According to the county’s chief road engineer, Jim Iwanicki, the county will not be able to build Rio Tinto’s hauling road unless the company pays for nearly all of the engineering and construction costs. It’s unclear at this time how much time and resources the county is willing to spend to get Rio Tinto’s road approved.