Rio Tinto Wilderness Haul Road Plan Cancelled a Second Time

The Marquette Mining Journal is reporting that Rio Tinto is once again cancelling plans to build a controversial ore haul road through remote lands in northwestern Marquette County [Read previous Headwaters' coverage of this issue by contributor Catherine Parker]. The decision comes after a December meeting where federal officials made clear that original objections to the road project would not change simply because the company now planned it to be a public, instead of a private road:

The decision comes after a December meeting between representatives from the Marquette County Road Commission, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Grand Rapids company King and MacGregor, which does environmental engineering for Kennecott, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

At that meeting at the DNRE offices at K.I. Sawyer, federal officials said prior wetlands destruction and other objections raised over a 22-mile road proposed in 2009 by Woodland Road LLC, which included Kennecott, remained in place for a revised project called County Road 595, which the road commission voted to pursue in October.

“We were optimistic that we could successfully develop a solution that would address Kennecott’s needs as well as long-standing community requests that Kennecott develop a route for our trucks, and lessen some traffic in and around the city of Marquette,” said Kennecott Eagle Minerals Acting Project Director Andrew Ware. “Unfortunately, due to environmental obstacles imposed by federal regulators coupled with the uncertain timelines and cost, we must move forward with the originally designated route, one we are committed to making work.”

Objections from three federal agencies caused the project to be shelved last spring. In a letter to Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality the EPA noted that impacts to wetlands would be too significant, the project’s stated purpose was misleading, Rio Tinto didn’t adequately consider alternative routes, and that company plans for future mining activity that would utilize the new road needed to be addressed. As reported on the Lake Superior Mining News blog, the US Army Corps of Engineers had problems with company claims the road wouldn’t be built specifically to accomodate mining plans:

Rio Tinto claims the road is needed “to construct a multi-purpose road to connect key industrial, commercial, and recreational areas in northwest Marquette County to US-41.” The Corps notes that Rio Tinto’s project description “does not adequately depict the purpose of the project” and that a more direct and accurate description of the project shouldn’t dodge 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. . . 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.”