Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DNR-Director@michigan.gov DNR Director Keith Creagh P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 DNR Graymont Proposal Comments Roscommon Customer Service Center, ATTN: Kerry Wieber DNR-GraymontProposalComments@michigan.gov 8717 N. Roscommon Road Roscommon, MI 48653 Hiawatha National Forest Jo Reyer, Forest Supervisor jreyer@fs.fed.us 820 Rains Drive Gladstone, MI 49837 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Melius, Regional Director Tom_Melius@fws.gov 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, MN 55437-1458

Interest in Graymont Proposal Save the Wild U.P. (SWUP) is a grassroots environmental nonprofit dedicated to protecting the unique wild lands and freshwater resources of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Through public awareness and education, SWUP strives to protect the Upper Peninsula’s freshwater and wild places from unsustainable development, environmental degradation, and dangerous contamination.

Concerns about Graymont Proposal Save the Wild U.P. has serious concerns over the Graymont Proposal, concerns which include the proposed “Land Transaction” and the proposed “Mineral Rights Transaction” as well as risks and expectations related to the sale of state-owned mineral rights, doubts about the proposal’s economic benefits given losses for tourism and forestry (the Graymont land would not qualify for participation in the Commercial Forest Act, according to the DNR). It is 1

outrageous that a comprehensive environmental review process did not require a detailed mining plan or a formal Environmental Impacts Assessment. Multiple revisions to the Graymont Proposal, moreover, create a confusing and ever-shifting focus for reviewers, with little meaningful emphasis on public input, and a striking lack of concern for tribal sovereignty, or federal land concerns which may legally prohibit limestone mining in this area. The unprecedented loss of public land would represent a loss for Michigan’s environment, Michigan’s taxpayers and the Eastern Upper Peninsula’s growing sustainable forest and tourism economies — and especially Michigan’s environment. Graymont's Proposal threatens endangered species, fragile ecologies, with negative impacts to groundwater, drinking water, and hydrologies.

1 Per statement by Kerry Wieber, DNR Forest Land Administrator at EUPAC meeting, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/EUPCAC_2014_January_23_Meeting_Minutes_453995_7.pdf

SWUP’s Key Concerns:

Interest in Graymont Proposal Concerns about Graymont Proposal Graymont Land Transaction Graymont Mineral Rights Transaction Mineral Rights Sales Lead to Mining What Jobs? Economic Pressures Propel Proposal Revisions Graymont Will Damage Tourism Graymont Offers Jobs — But No Mining Plan? Graymont Provides No Environmental Impacts Assessment Graymont’s Ever-Shifting Proposal Details, Poorly Explained Federal Land Concerns, Weeks Act Prohibitions Graymont Degrades Public Access, Public Lands vs. Private Profits Graymont Threatens Endangered Species, Fragile Ecologies Failed Process for Meaningful Public Input Failed Process for Working with Tribal Sovereignty Save the Wild U.P. Urges DNR to Reject Graymont Proposal Supporting File - “Pure Michigan” For Sale

Graymont Land Transaction In opposing the proposed sale of lands and mineral rights to Graymont, Save the Wild U.P. affirms the stance of others, including the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, and the Sierra Club, which has stated: "Michigan's public lands like this are too valuable to sell off — and to do so for a few million dollars in short-term benefits would be tantamount to theft." 2

The Graymont Proposal should not be under serious consideration. The State of Michigan has a system in place for identifying “surplus lands” that may be considered for sale; this land was never identified as surplus. According to the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, this is “contiguous, prime forestland in the eastern UP that DNR personnel have described as ‘the most productive forest land in the eastern UP.’ Previously, DNR officials “vetoed proposals to manage this land for biodiversity, claiming the state could not afford to give up such valuable land” given its high 3

value for timber production. “The DNR has existing lists of land they wish to sell and guidelines for what kinds of land they should sell, but this parcel meets neither of these criteria. Given this, long before an application was submitted, Graymont should have been told its proposal was not in the interests of the state and would not happen. Instead, Graymont submitted an application, partly with encouragement of state legislators such as Sen. Tom Casperson of Escanaba pushing the fiction that "the state owns too much land" despite strong evidence that Michigan citizens love and cherish their public lands.” 4

The newest Graymont Proposal revision includes financial details about outcomes which are irrelevant projections. The mineral rights transaction is described by the State in terms of how many cents per ton the state coffers will

2 Anne Woidwode, Sierra Club chapter director 3 Marvin Roberson, Forest Ecologist, Sierra Club chapter (April 6, 2014 Sierra Club newsletter) 4 Letter opposing Graymont Proposal, submitted by the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition (April 9, 2014)

receive (and even which state fund will receive those proceeds), although this land/minerals transaction does not guarantee that a single ton of limestone will ever be dug and profitably removed. What this transaction would guarantee, if approved, is that all existing “best uses” for the land, and all DNR management plans will be tossed aside, and a foreign mining company would control what happens to an enormous chunk of Public Land. The public will lose access, the environment will be degraded, and fragile ecological habitats will be impacted in ways which the Proposal currently under review (land and mineral transactions) fail to consider. Since there are no Environmental Impact Assessments required at this stage, it should be seen as fraudulent or at least highly manipulative to include any discussion of profits related to hypothetical future mining in this review.

Graymont Mineral Rights Transaction Mineral rights are only worth something if they are profitably extracted. The proposed sale does not guarantee extraction, although the DNR’s discussion of the Graymont Proposal repeatedly conflates the two things. No alternatives to the Graymont Proposal have been discussed.... It is as if, by the act of a corporation proposing a mine, all other uses (current and potential) are deemed inadequate or irrelevant. How does the Graymont Proposal contradict existing state Management Plans for this section of public land? The DNR did not require a cost-benefits analysis, or consider the considerable risks, or the financial loss due to degradation of land, or financial losses to the existing use of the public lands. In November 2013, the Graymont Proposal was being publicly discussed this way: “As part of the deal, Graymont would pay the DNR a royalty fee on each ton of limestone that is removed from the land over a 100 year span.” 5

By January 15, 2015, under the newest revision, the per-ton royalties seem to disappear in 2037. Since Graymont describes the mine as a hundred year project, and it won’t be permitted in short order, that means royalties for less than 20 years. And again — this is a conversation about mineral royalties based on limestone that may never be removed from the ground! An October 2014 press release from the DNR leads with these financial details: “Under the application, Graymont would pay the state 18.75 cents for each ton of extracted limestone. Those royalties would be deposited into the State Parks Endowment Fund.” Emphasizing hypothetical financial assurances during the DNR’s review process 6

seems inappropriately biased, however, given the lack of a mining application or mining permit. Or, if appropriate, a comprehensive cost-benefits analysis should have been included, acknowledging both the promised benefits, and quantifying the anticipated economic, social and environmental losses. Considering the high quality of limestone found in this section of land, the proposed 18.75 cents per ton of extracted limestone seems a bit far from market value. Graymont is pursuing this limestone due to its high purity, and high commercial value. The type of limestone that has been discovered in this area is known as pure dolomite, and will require a Hard Rock Mining permit, not a quarrying permit. Since the Graymont Project is considered “Hard Rock” mining, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may be involved in review of any mining impacts to federal Forest Service lands. Given the scale of the Graymont’s plans, and impacts to federal lands, a federal hardrock mineral prospecting permit should be required, and Graymont should be asked to complete a federally-required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — before Michigan’s DNR makes a decision on the proposal.

5 http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=971131 6 http://abc10up.com/dnr-receives-revised-application-for-proposed-limestone-mine-in-mackinac-county/

Mineral Rights Acquisition Leads to Mining While the DNR has stated repeatedly “ The DNR is reviewing the land transaction only and has no authority over the mining process” there is a great deal of overlap in the review process, in Graymont's Proposal, and especially in any 7

conversation about the touted financial (jobs, royalties) benefits. The DNR’s environmental review could not meaningfully consider negative impacts, given a lack of details about the proposed mining activities. The DNR suggests we review this as a mineral rights sale only — but the sale of large tracts of mineral rights leads inevitably to mining. It’s not hard to predict that once a company (Graymont) acquires a large quantity of mineral rights, they will press hard to profit from them, making the sale of publicly owned mineral rights a real concern. Mining companies threaten municipalities, concerned citizens and state regulators with “takings” lawsuits when their mining plans are blocked. It can be assumed that if the State of Michigan sells this enormous tract of mineral rights, Graymont will threaten the State with litigation, later, if their subsequent mining proposal is not approved. Selling the mineral rights, in this case, is tantamount to supporting an unreviewed mining plan. Failure to approve a mining application, after the sale of mineral rights, is interpreted as “infringing on mineral rights” — a tactic currently in vogue among resource extraction companies: Kennecott threatened a takings lawsuit while sulfide mining regulations were being written; anti-fracking bans have created a rash of takings charges: “Holders of the mineral rights might file a lawsuit that states the ban is essentially a taking of land (...) “The Supreme Court's ruling on takings laws is quite ambiguous,” Gaba said. Gaba and other attorneys who spoke to Bloomberg BNA all agreed that legal questions surrounding takings is one of the murkiest areas of law, and how the courts will rule is unpredictable. (...) A court will examine what is the nature of the taking, the degree of the expectations linked to the investment and the economic impact.” 8

Given the ridiculously high degree of expectations linked to Graymont’s proposed investment, it seems predictable that Michigan will face takings litigation if they failed to approve Graymont’s mining application down the line.... no matter what that application says, mining seems already tacitly approved, if this transaction is approved. In light of this, the State’s segmenting of approval (first land and mineral rights, then a mining plan reviewed by another agency) seems a highly flawed process, and a comprehensive review of Graymont’s intentions should have been required prior to DNR’s consideration of such an unprecedented land transaction, including Environmental Impacts Assessment, with complete details on transportation route, rigorous hydrology studies, biological impacts to wetlands, rare habitats etcetera.

What Jobs? Economic Pressures Propel Proposal Revisions First, this is not a mining proposal. It is a land transaction proposal, and a mineral rights application proposal. And yet, much of the public discourse surrounding the proposed transaction touted “benefits” (used to justify Graymont's Proposal) which would only become real benefits if a mining proposal were also approved and permitted. This has lead to misleading coverage, and serious confusion among the public who are being led to believe — through DNR communications, interviews, and public meetings — that “jobs” will be created by the proposed sale. No portion of this land/minerals transaction creates limestone mining jobs, period. Clearly, public discussion of the Graymont Proposal conflates very separate issues — jobs, mineral rights, and private versus public land ownership — with the promised outcomes of a mining corporation. Reporters and citizens aren’t getting this wrong by accident; Graymont and the DNR are both discussing the proposal in a deceitful way:

7 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/EUPCAC_2014_January_23_Meeting_Minutes_453995_7.pdf 8 http://www.bna.com/opponents-plan-file-n17179907031/

In late 2013, the mine was not promising many jobs with this project. “While some are excited about jobs, Graymont can't promise exactly how many jobs it will add. What they can promise, is that they intend to hire local people.“ 9

In recent months, the jobs numbers have been wildly inflated, and the DNR has allowed deceitful jobs information to enter their review of the Graymont Proposal. Most recently, the mine’s representative says: “The construction phase of the project would involve an initial investment by Graymont of about $14 million and could create 130 job years of employment, Stoll said. After its completion, initial quarrying operations could generate $4 million in annual U.P. spending by Graymont, along with 45 direct full-time jobs, 40 indirect jobs, and more than $225,000 in taxes and royalties. This is in addition to about $500,000 in infrastructure which Graymont has already built in anticipation of the project's approval. "Call it a leap of faith, if you will," Stoll said. Stoll said the project could generate over $125 million in economic growth in the Upper Peninsula over the next two decades based on current investment plans.” 10

Residents believe what the DNR and Graymont say: “Area residents supporting the project (...) see the Graymont offer as a lifeline to an area of very high unemployment and aging residents. Graymont proposes only six jobs at the mine to start, but has long-term plans to possibly build a processing plant there. And residents hope for ripple effects from trucking and indirect jobs. "Our school systems are desperately in need of young families, opportunities for them to stay, live and work in the area," said Bruce Gustafson of Naubinway. 11

In meetings the DNR describes this as a “land proposal” and “mineral rights proposal” but the real sticking points — promised jobs, the displaced economics of timbering or tourism, transportation routes, estimated acreages of mining operation footprint — are actually hypothetical questions related to a future mining proposal, which distracts from the issues under consideration. When citizens objected to only a few jobs being created, the company switched it to a higher number, and then doubled it, and threw in some indirect jobs. This is meaningless — the jobs are related to a future MINING PROPOSAL which has not been evaluated and is beyond the scope of this proposal.

Graymont Will Damage Tourism The 10,000 acre stretch of land in the Upper Peninsula being considered for sale to the Graymont Mining company is located between Luce, Mackinac and Chippewa counties and is also within the Hiawatha National Forest and the Lake Superior State Forest . These three eastern U.P. counties rely heavily on hunting, fishing and recreation dollars. According to the most recent revision of the Land Application, Graymont will have ultimate authority over which recreational trails are open to the public. Not only may some visitors to the area suddenly find fences blocking their 12

trails, but on the opposite side they may see a landscape so irreversibly altered that many of the reasons they once came to the U.P. are as lost as the wildness itself. The Carden Plain Important Bird Area of Ontario has documented economic damage to the ecotourism potential of alvar communities like the ecosystems contained in the land for sale: “On an economic level, quarries represent a threat to tourism, probably the most promising economic opportunity available to Carden, while providing minimal local benefits to the economy. Despite all the negatives, provincial policy

9 http://www.9and10news.com/story/23951620/mixed-opinions-on-mining-proposal-in-the-upper-peninsula 10 http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/556897.html 11 http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/15/upper-peninsula-graymont-limestone-mining-land-sale/21783285/ 12 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Graymont_revised_LTA_January_2015_478748_7.pdf

favours quarry expansion and, in spite of strenuous effort by environmental groups such as the Carden Plain IBA and the municipal government, they will expand.” 13

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has enough information regarding the long-term economic importance of undisturbed natural areas that hypothetically, no state can legitimately create legislature or enter into contracts that lessen the federal protection or acknowledged importance of these places. From the EPA’s own website: “Ecotourism Alvars can serve as an ecotourism attraction, bringing economic benefits to local communities. For example, the wildflower displays on the Marblehead Peninsula alvars prior to quarry development attracted busloads of people. Currently, sites on the Bruce Peninsula are very popular with naturalists and photographers, and other alvar locations such as Manitoulin, Carden Plain, and Chaumont Barrens are experiencing increasing visitation.” 14

 Given the documented economic desperation of the communities immediately impacted by the Graymont project, and the obvious manipulation of jobs numbers by both the DNR and Graymont in public communications, the most obvious conclusion is that this project boldly asks the citizens of Michigan to abandon assured long-term ecotourism dollars and growth for hypothetical, short-term mining jobs. The Upper Peninsula and its residents have historically lived through and risen above the boom-bust cycles brought by extractive industries like mining. Instead of repeating these cycles and exposing yet another generation of Yoopers to the related hardships of the extractive industries, Save the Wild U.P. asks our elected representatives and government employees to exercise thoughtful consideration and bravery when faced with another opportunity to bargain away our natural resources to the highest bidder.

Graymont Offers Jobs — But No Mining Plan? Graymont has been quick to discuss hypothetical job creation related to future mining activities, but refuses to answer detailed questions about their future mining plan, which is currently under development. At a “Friends of the Hiawatha” (Hiawatha National Forest - sponsored meeting on October 17, 2014), and during a tour of the Graymont project area, Graymont’s representative made it clear that the land transaction was not a mining permit application, and refused to answer any specific questions about the mining of limestone, saying it was premature to comment, and that “everything that would be worked out” eventually, in the permitting process. He admitted that Graymont has hired FOTH to develop the mining application and environmental review work. Graymont’s mining permit, presumably, would be reviewed, approved, and regulated under the authority of the DEQ, not the DNR. The DNR, if they approve this land transaction, will be offering their de facto approval a Graymont mining plan that no one has seen. Again, the newest Graymont revisions include financial statements about outcomes which are fanciful projections. The mineral rights transaction is discussed by the State in terms of how many cents per ton the state coffers will receive, although the Graymont land/minerals transaction does not guarantee that a single ton of limestone will be dug or profitably removed. Any discussion of royalties or tax profits due to hypothetical future mining is strictly outside the scope of this proposal.

Graymont Provides No Environmental Impacts Assessment As of November 5, 2014, the DNR’s Forest Management Advisory Committee reviewed the Graymont Proposal, and recommended that it “be rejected due to the absence of information” including the “extent, use, and the details of a mining plan of the lands proposed for surface easement (which) have not been specified” and “the reclamation plan (which) must include several important elements such as public safety, invasive species, and recreation.” Lacking clear

13 http://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm 14 http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/ecopage/shore/alvars/alvar-technical-report-199903.pdf

and comprehensive details concerning the intended use of the land, including a comprehensive mining proposal, an Environmental Impact assessment, and related reclamation plans, the sale of such an enormous, ecologically intact swath of public land must be rejected as “... the Upper Peninsula version of environmental racism. Want to get rich exploiting natural resources in a way that will leave behind a 13,000-acre moonscape? Do it in a place where economically desperate residents will do anything for a job.” Citizens who attended public meetings and expressed 15

concerns about such real issues as “noise, impact on roads, air quality, property values, water quality, and damage to wells” were reminded that this is not a mining proposal. When a local resident asked “what is being done to protect his air and water quality issues; Mrs. Haughey stated the DNR does not have the authority or expertise to evaluate them; it is the DEQ’s role” (and yet the DEQ is not involved with this proposed land sale). This arbitrary distinction constitutes a shirking of responsibility regarding environmental concerns, from the perspective of local residents and concerned citizens, and it avoids a discussion of real and serious issues related to Graymont’s intended use of this land. Who will evaluate “water quality” concerns related to the Graymont Proposal, if not the DNR?

Graymont’s Ever-Shifting Proposal Details, Poorly Explained Graymont Proposal application review process is a shifting mirage, segmented, constantly revised, and has actively discouraged public input. How many revisions have there been? How many times do concerned citizens need to write new comments or attend new meetings for what is essentially the same proposal — an enormous and precedent-setting sale of Public Lands for the benefit of a single foreign corporation? No matter how much lipstick they add, the pig remains a pig. But the public has grown confused; the process is dangerously disingenuous regarding the importance of public comment. At the October 17, 2014 “Friends of the Hiawatha” meeting, concerned citizens were told by Creagh’s assistant that they would need to submit new written comments because the Graymont application had been substantially revised. Published statements suggest the same: “We will undertake a detailed review of the revised application... feedback from the public remains a critical component of the review process and will be taken into consideration before any decisions are made.” 16

Now, as of January 15, 2015, Graymont “submitted another revised application to develop a limestone mine and processing facility near Rexton in the Upper Peninsula.” Is it reasonable to expect that the public will review all these changes and submit new written comment once more — with less than a month remaining before the DNR’s publicized decision date? Public input is obviously devalued in this process. The State, allowing endless revisions from Graymont, wants the public to believe they are upholding environmental values while carefully considering the proposal. As of late January, the DNR chief was telling the press that Graymont still has time to meet their concerns: “Canadian company Graymont Inc. says it believes concerns raised by DNR officials can be worked out through further negotiation.” With another revision? If there are additional revisions in February, when will the public have opportunity to meaningfully review and comment on the changes — after the Feb 12 meeting when a decision has already been announced.

Federal Land Concerns, Weeks Act Prohibitions Some of the mineral rights at issue in this sale are beneath surface lands owned by the National Forest Service, lands acquired for timber purposes under the Weeks Act, which prohibits their extraction. At a Friends of the Hiawatha meeting (October 17, 2014) the federal position was made clear: even if the DNR approves a portion of the Land

15 http://www.thetimesherald.com/story/sports/outdoors/2015/01/22/dnr-close-decision-huge-mine/22184415/ 16 http://abc10up.com/dnr-receives-revised-application-for-proposed-limestone-mine-in-mackinac-county/

Transaction or the Mineral Rights Transaction, the Graymont project will hit significant hurdles when dealing with federal (surface lands) held by the National Forest. At that meeting, a National Forest representative indicated that the mandates of the Weeks Act would be deemed inconsistent with limestone mining activities, legally blocking the Graymont Proposal. In the case of Graymont’s proposal, any proposed land exchanges intended to subvert Weeks Act prohibitions should be viewed with an especially critical eye. In Minnesota, lands acquired under the Weeks Act pose an obstacle to the PolyMet Mine proposal, prompting the PolyMet corporation to suggest land swaps with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources — a way to bypass federal legal restrictions. “Most of the lands involved in the (PolyMet) Project were acquired by the United States under the authority of the Weeks Act which restricts the Forest Service from allowing large surface mining as proposed by PolyMet. SNF and PolyMet have identified possible parcels for a land exchange as a way to overcome conflicting interests associated with the proposed open pit operation. The Forest Service is a co-lead agency with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the environmental impact statement for the mine proposal and proposed land exchange... ” Given the 17

the clear similarities (mineral rights, land swaps and Weeks Act issues), it seems unfortunate that the Michigan DNR did not ask the Forest Service to co-lead the assessment of Graymont’s Proposal. “Whether the mineral rights were reserved or outstanding, prior to purchase of the surface, the Forest Service and the National Forest Reservation Commission, which approved all purchases, had to determine that the exercise of private mineral rights would not substantially impair the value of the surface estate for national forest purposes. Congress specifically stated in a 1913 amendment to the Weeks Act that “acquisition by the United States shall in no case be defeated because of located or defined rights-of-way, easements, and (mineral rights) reservations (...) for the purposes of the (Weeks) Act.” 18

Graymont Degrades Public Access, Public Lands vs. Private Profits Nearly all concerns raised in opposition to the Graymont Project involve outraged reactions to the loss of public lands for the sole benefit of a private corporation. Along with concerns regarding the violation of their federally assured treaty rights, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians notified the public of their objection to the obvious collusion and favoritism shown by politicians towards industry: “The tribe also is concerned that, if this deal is approved, a precedent would be set where those who have enough money and can influence enough elected officials to go along can purchase vast tracts of state land to further their personal interests. It’s clear that some state lawmakers are trying to push the DNR into becoming pro-business rather than looking out for the interests of residents, hunters, anglers, campers and hikers when deciding how the state should manage its public lands.”

Impacts to Wetlands, Groundwater, Drinking Water, Hydrology In facilitating this sale of State Forest lands to Graymont Mining Company, the State of Michigan is offering de facto sanction for an unpermitted mining plan: the act of selling such an enormous tract of Public Land to a foreign company — for the express purpose of a three-stage mining operation on the land, still vaguely defined — would grant state approval for the project itself. Following a pattern becoming familiar here in the U.P., land contracts are being arranged for the sole benefit of single mining company, while plans are being discussed for both underground and surface mining, including how many acres and years of each stage — before any of the environmental impacts are determined. Assessments are bypassed

17 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5308167.pdf 18 http://www.foresthistory.org/Publications/FHT/FHTSpringFall2011/Mineral_Rights.pdf

in the rush to sell our State Forest lands; public input on Graymont’s mining project will not be sought until the land sale is a done deal. This is a dangerous and undemocratic precedent. Most critically, groundwater quality and watershed impacts have not been evaluated. What is the long-term environmental cost to watersheds, or the wetland systems that collectively support a fragile ecosystem linked to the area’s unique karst topography? What is the cost in terms of Michigan’s clean — priceless — drinking water? What is the true hydrological effect of a major limestone mining operation of the scale and duration proposed for the Rexton area? While we in the Upper Peninsula think of ourselves as blessed with pure water, it must be remembered that many areas of the U.P. are not well-situated, with regards to good-tasting groundwater or plentiful well-water, since underground aquifers do not form in the dense rocks of the Laurentian Shield (in the Central U.P.), and "groundwater wells constructed in the Western Upper Peninsula can produce very low water volumes, and have objectionable levels of naturally occurring chlorides, hardness, iron, fluorides, etc." For a region facing *both* water quality and 19

water quantity problems, karst geology is actually a storehouse for pure water: "Porous rock layers such as sandstone and limestone allow some water to collect in the spaces (pores) between the sand grains or particles that make up the rock layer, and this water may flow through these porous rock layers for a considerable distance. The sedimentary rock aquifers are good storage areas that can be drilled for domestic and industrial water supplies." 20

Truly, it seems no value is being given to water in the Graymont Proposal, much less the State of Michigan's responsibility to maintain the ecological integrity of groundwater systems connected to this area's limestone geology. This is especially important given the presence of limestone and sinkholes -- a natural community of unique ecological value. This area is listed in Michigan's Natural Features Inventory as "features formed largely by underground drainage. Karst terrains are characterized by caves, steep valleys, sinkholes, and a general lack of surface streams." 21

Major hydrological exchange impacts appear certain, given the proximity of several watersheds to the mining area. In their 2014 response to the proposed land sale, the Michigan DNR itself raised serious concerns about the lack of planning for 'process water' created (and contaminated) during the underground mining operations. In addition, groundwater levels are certain to be impacted by the mine’s dewatering efforts: Michigan groundwater maps show the water table levels in this part of the U.P. to be only 0-15 feet below the surface. 22

Grave concerns need to be raised about the Graymont Proposal’s blatant disregard for Michigan's water. Reviewing the proposed plans for “Reclamation Activity (Exhibit C), one is shocked to find plans to reclassify any accumulating quarry water (and whatever species colonize the raw limestone quarry) as a wetland! Paragraph 6 of the Reclamation Plan states, outrageously, that “if water is present in a Mined Area or begins to accumulate in a Mined Area after mining and crushing closes in that Mined Area, Buyer shall allow the water to remain and accumulate to passively create wetland conditions, ponds, lakes or streams in that Mined Area.” Michigan's DNR expects the Graymont quarry water to have problems with high levels of dissolved solids. Moreover, water-filled quarries may present water quality problems, and contamination of surrounding groundwater. Allowing water to accumulate in mined-out areas in no way diminishes the total impacts of dewatering from active mining operations, and given the permissive language of the Graymont Proposal, process water could actually be diverted from active to inactive quarries, impacting the surrounding hydrologies. Quarry dewatering activities in lower

19 http://web2.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/groundwater.html 20 http://web2.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/groundwater.html 21 http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/community.cfm?id=10707 22 http://www.egr.msu.edu/igw/GWIM%20Figure%20Webpage/Webpages%20-%20Links/Figure7.html

Michigan led to significant drops in groundwater levels, as measured by USGS in surrounding wells. And special 23

biological consideration should be given to the fact that limestone sinkholes and caves "provide habitat and hibernacula for bats" — especially in light of new threats to endangered and karst-specific species, and U.P. bat 24 25

deaths from white nose syndrome in 2015. In Michigan’s 2012 Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment draft report, the State identifies damage due to subsidence – the lowering or collapse of a land surface, caused by natural or human-induced activities that erode or remove subsurface support -- specifically in areas underlain by limestone, as a point of concern. “Human- induced subsidence is caused principally by groundwater withdrawal, drainage of organic soils, and underground mining.” Given the scale of the proposed Graymont project, it should be concluded that groundwater withdrawal 26

and underground mining will combine to create subsidence risk for the surface lands.

The proposed sale is clearly a terrible deal for “Pure Michigan” water.

Graymont Threatens Endangered Species, Fragile Ecologies

The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service has identified the specific terrain underlying the Rexton area — wetlands “fed by calcareous groundwater associated with dolomitic bedrock (Soluk et al. 1998; Cashatt and Vogt 2001)” — as critical refugia supporting the Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), a federally-listed endangered species. Known occupied habitats are currently restricted to a handful of private and public lands, one of which is Mackinac County in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan — the site of the Graymont Proposal. Given the combined presence of slow-flowing wetlands and limestone terrain in the Rexton area, and the likelihood of the Graymont project to disrupt ecological and hydrological processes, this section of Mackinac County cannot seriously be considered for a massive limestone mining operation (with proposed open quarry and underground operations). This is prime habitat for one of the nation’s most endangered dragonflies. According to the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, “The most significant threats to the existence of this species have been identified as habitat destruction or alteration, and contamination. Types of direct habitat loss include commercial and residential development, quarrying, creating landfills, constructing pipelines, and filling of wetlands (Zercher 1999).” 27

According to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service recovery plan for Somatochlora hineana, “limited systematic survey work has been conducted.” Certainly, no biological survey has been undertaken concerning the wetlands threatened by Graymont's Proposal. “It is imperative to maintain a high degree of habitat quality through conservation of connected landscape ecosystems that incorporate the entire wetland and upland matrix.” 28

It is very disturbing that the DNR’s review of the Graymont land transaction has failed to consider the fate this endangered species. Conservation of supportive habitat should be of primary and guiding importance to both the Michigan DNR and the USFWS. Only a handful of dragonfly-supporting sites have been identified in Mackinac County, and several tiny study sites are being protected based on the rare dragonfly’s known presence. Federal directive clearly states “ the spatial scale and structure of HED populations is essentially unknown at this point. Effective recovery and management is simply not possible without knowing the spatial scale and structure of populations” 29

and “...much is still unknown regarding this species’ tolerances to various anthropogenic pressures and natural

23 http://mi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/OF/OF01-498/OF01-498LW.php 24 http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/communities/community.cfm?id=10707 25 http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10371_10402-325890--,00.html 26 http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/THIRA_State_of_Michigan_Draft_First_Steps_390748_7.pdf 27 http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/abstracts/zoology/somatochlora_hineana.pdf 28 http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/2006-01_Hines_Emerald_Dragonfly.pdf 29 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/grants/2007/s6IL_2007.html

stochasticity associated with changes in prey abundance, competition, and reproduction.” Therefore, according to conclusions of A Characterization of Hine's Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana Williamson) Habitat in Michigan, we must “conserve connected landscape ecosystems, which include the entire wetland and upland matrix, rather than piecemeal parcels in isolation.” 30

The federal recovery plan for Somatochlora hineana should make it obvious: 10,000 acres of prime refugia habitat should not be drained, dewatered, or otherwise blasted, undermined or degraded for the benefit of a limestone mining project. Large chunks of ecologically-intact public lands are of key benefit to the recovery of this species. "Habitat loss due to agriculture, development, limestone quarrying, and groundwater extraction are the probable cause of this species' decline. Loss of remaining habitat through disruption of ecological and hydrological processes is the primary threat to surviving populations." As most mineral rich tracts of land go, this section is coveted, not just for the lucrative limestone this company can quarry but because this section of land is one of a handful of globally-rare alvar ecosystems. This tract of land is coveted as habitat for endangered and threatened species. This tract of land is coveted because its’ potential sale represents a disheartening and dangerous trend; disregard for the long-term value of undisturbed wild places for short-term profit.

The State’s “environmental review” phase of the Graymont Proposal failed to consider the unique ecosystems that would be impacted by a large-scale mining operation. Citizens know what’s at stake, however. According to the minutes of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), June 2014, “Kathy English spoke on the proposed sale of 13,000 acres to Graymont for the purpose of mining limestone. English provided information regarding alvar — a formation where limestone and bedrock are very close to the surface of the land. This land is protected. She voiced a concern that the majority of persons in this area are not being represented by their elected officials. 31

Alvar ecosystems, or “communities” as they are referred to in most scientific literature, are some of the most rare and biologically diverse habitat found on our planet. Alvars are found clustered in the Northern Hemisphere, and In North America, these communities are only found in the Great Lakes Region. While many alvar communities can appear dramatically different to the untrained eye, all alvars have the following characteristics:

● occur in areas with little to no topsoil, on limestone or dolomite bedrock, open landscapes, very little tree cover

● subject to seasonal droughts and flooding ● they have a distinctive set of plant species and characteristic vegetation associations; and ● they contain many species that are rare elsewhere in the Great Lakes basin and some species endemic to the

basin, including plants, terrestrial molluscs, and invertebrates 32

Alvar communities contain biodiversity of great scientific importance, given the research interest in these unique ecosystems. The adaptations shown by plants and animals to the extreme conditions of alvar communities provide scientists with ample subject matter for studies pertaining to crop cultivation, climate change and drought, evolution, taxonomy and biogeology. Most notably, “the discovery of new species of insects (e.g. Brunton 1986), snails (Grimm 1995), and a new species of plant (Catling et al 1993) from alvars reinforces this research potential.” The promise 33

and presence of such valuable scientific knowledge contained in alvar communities is surely worth more to Michigan — and the global community — than the profits of one international mining company.

30 http://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/2006-01_Hines_Emerald_Dragonfly.pdf 31 michigandnr.com/FTP/wildlife/NRCMaterials/2014%20NRC%20Meetings/June%202014/June_2014_Minutes.pdf 32 www.epa.gov/greatlakes/ecopage/shore/alvars/alvar-technical-report-199903.pdf 33 www.epa.gov/greatlakes/ecopage/shore/alvars/alvar-technical-report-199903.pdf

Alvar communities are not simply rare and unique ecosystems. Almost every occurrence of these habitats are threatened by human encroachment and misuse. Some of the largest alvar communities are found in the Ontario region of Kawartha, known as the Carden Plains. Like portions of the Eastern Upper Peninsula, Carden Plains are blessed to contain such extraordinary biodiversity, but bedeviled by limestone quarries, which pose a direct threat to ecological concerns:

“Limestone quarries are by far the most serious threat to the future integrity of the Carden Plain IBA and its species. Recent expansion of aggregate operations within and surrounding Carden Plain has created a high level of concern. The development and operation of limestone quarries have several effects on habitat and species. The quarry itself, along with the associated stockpiles, berms, and access roads, destroys natural habitats. The practice of surface rock harvesting for large chunks of flat limestone, which is underway in some parts of the IBA, strips habitat of its foundation, leaving little opportunity for restoration. Finally, the noise and dust associated with quarry operations and truck haul routes affect nesting birds in adjacent areas. These impacts are likely both ecological (e.g. impact on the food web), and behavioural (e.g. impact on breeding activities such as courtship and use of song). Some quarries may have deliberately destroyed habitat on their property to prevent endangered or threatened species from nesting there. While they deny this there are no Loggerhead Shrike currently nesting on active quarry property despite history of active nesting prior to the quarry operations.” 34

The documentation of alvar habitat destruction by limestone mining is most certainly not a site specific occurrence. This destruction is not due to the careless practices of one mining company--the protocol implemented to remove limestone is standardized and ensures the destruction and disruption of these invaluable ecosystems. “On an economic level, quarries represent a threat to tourism (...) while providing minimal local benefits to the economy. Despite all the negatives, provincial policy favours quarry expansion and, in spite of strenuous effort by environmental groups such as the Carden Plain IBA and the municipal government, they will expand.” 35

According to the 2009 Niagara Draft Environmental Impact Statement, covering the Hiawatha National Forest St. Ignace and Sault Ste. Marie Ranger Districts, including Mackinac County, MI, “Significant issues identified involve karst protection” — and where karst or alvar features are found, “no roadwork, logging activities, or other earth disturbance would take place within the established reserve area. Reserve areas would be established prior to implementation of project activities with the input of the district hydrologist, geologist, or botanist.” 36

The Niagara Draft EIS seeks to “avoid and protect locations of karst related features such as limestone cliffs, ledges, alvar, boulder fields, caves, sinkholes, and fissures.” Additionally, the Niagara Draft EIS states that “limestone pavements have some potential to support rare species but the known sites within the HNF are very small and generally too shaded to support the special plant community known as alvar that is considered to be of regional and even global significance (Marr 1999). Upper Peninsula alvar sites are mostly clustered along the shoreline (including) an alvar-like habitat is at the Purple Coneflower Preserve in Kenneth owned and protected by the Michigan Nature Association.” The specified Kenneth alvar site (Fred Dye Nature Sanctuary) lies very close to Rexton, and the Graymont Proposal, and it must be assumed that many additional karst features, including undisclosed or unmapped alvar communities, exist in the Rexton area. Hiawatha’s Draft EIS identified approximately 2,700 acres of karst features requiring protection. According to Appendix B Plant and Wildlife Biological Evaluation of the the Niagara Draft EIS, this specific area may contain additional “unmapped areas of alvar community.”

34 http://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm 35 http://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm 36 http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/33411_FSPLT1_010761.pdf

Failed Process for Meaningful Public Input According to the minutes of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), February 2014, “The department is using the land transaction review process, which has three parts, environmental review, legal review and social review. There will continue to be meetings for the public. Currently the department is in the middle of review, and is being deliberate and very thorough. The environmental review should be completed in February (2014).” 37

The environmental review did not — could not – have considered the true threats posed by the Graymont Proposal, given that there is no mining plan. The DNR’s environmental review process failed to identify several key ecological challenges to this transaction, including rare habitats and endangered species. Given regular and significant revisions to Graymont's Proposal, it seems a full environmental, legal and social review process should have been restarted several times. Among the process failures, the proposal fails to specify Graymont’s transportation plan — a common problem with mining projects, which manipulate transportation as a point of leverage, later. No environmental review of the transportation plan occurred, although the lack of a transportation plan was discussed during a January 23, 2014 UPEC meeting: “(Graymont’s) Mr. Robison stated they will most likely truck it, a million tons a year, and a truck trail is an option they are looking at. The concept of having a private road away from existing public roads is what others prefer. Ms. Wieber clarified that a truck trail or utilizing state land for this purpose is not part of this proposal and a proposal has not been submitted for it. Mr. Ellenwood stated when the DNR reviews the proposal, it should review how the product is going to be removed and/or provide others the opportunity to bid on this land at a competitive level. Ms. Wieber stated the DNR is only reviewing the proposed land transaction, not a mine.” It is not clear what the DNR’s “social review” process entailed, but it has been minimal, discussion at downstate DNR meetings, and a couple of public meetings confined to remote U.P. sites, where the population is most easily swayed by a mining corporation’s promises of economic boom times. At a ‘Friends of the Hiawatha National Forest” meeting (October 17, 2014, Chippewa Township Hall), attendees learned that another revised application had been submitted by Graymont a week before. Citizens were full of questions: Were the comments on the original application (November 2013) null and void? What had really changed? Was the clock on the DNR’s review process resetting again? No matter how many times Graymont edits their maps or tweaks their royalties numbers, the core concern remains unchanged: should nearly 10,000 acres of public land be converted, through outright purchase and long-term lease arrangements, into a private mining operation? A sale of public forestland has reportedly never been contemplated on such a scale. Despite numerous concerns with Graymont’s Proposal, it has received serious consideration, driven by a statewide political climate that views resource exploitation by private entities as the greatest good. The public’s opinion has never been seriously considered in this process. The application is to the Michigan DNR for various state-owned land transactions — but the Hiawatha National Forest owns surface and mineral rights in this area, which may prove a serious stumbling block to the proposal. The lands that Graymont proposes to trade away are not yet enumerated; some may contain underground karst caves that render mining problematic. The problem is, the federal government owns the surface rights to these lands. Normally in severed rights, the mineral estate is dominant, but in the case of some federal lands the reverse is true: Lands purchased under the Weeks Act were dedicated perpetually as timberland, never to be mined or disturbed. It is unclear which lands exactly might fall under this prohibition of surface disturbance, but federal ownership of the surface may be a deal-breaker, and any sale or exchange may be further delayed, litigated, or blocked.

37 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/MINUTES_Feb2014_450748_7.pdf

Other aspects of the Graymont Proposal are standard operating procedure for mining corporations: view the initial proposal as a draft, and submit a more reasonable revision to placate any expression of public dismay or outrage. Find pliable politicians at all levels and repeatedly stress economic development and jobs. Appear reasonable and willing to compromise, as long as the end goal is secured — even offer to sell back to the state as “right to first offer to purchase” these sacrificial lands after they’ve been mined and degraded. As for citizen input: it is back loaded in the approval process and unlikely to be consequential. The laws, after all, are in the corporations’ favor, even foreign corporations.

Failed Process for Working with Tribal Sovereignty

Treaty Rights are directly threatened by the Graymont Proposal. This land lies in the heart of the ceded territory of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community — yet Graymont and the State have bypassed the tribe’s concerns. According to Aaron A. Payment, Chairperson of the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians, “As leader of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, I oppose the Graymont deal because giving up control of over 10,000 acres of state land interferes with the 1836 treaty tribes’ right to hunt, fish and gather in its treaty ceded territory, negatively affecting its members’ court-affirmed right to have unlimited access to this land for spiritual and cultural purposes.” “Moreover, access to non-impaired lands are essential to support Native American treaty rights--including those reserved under the 1836 Treaty which includes hunting, fishing and gathering rights within traditional territory encompassing the Graymont project site. This particular treaty was negotiated with the federal government before Michigan received statehood. Article 6 Section 2 of the U.S. constitution upholds such treaties as ‘the supreme law of the land’,” according to Lori Ann Sherman, Natural Resources Director of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Save the Wild U.P. echoes the treaty rights concerns of these specific tribes and is consistently concerned with transparency and respectful dealings with all governments by industry. Our organization strives for collaboration with tribal nations regarding public use of public lands. The disregard shown by the DNR and Graymont for treaty rights held by these nations is yet another reason this project should be rejected.

Save the Wild U.P. Urges DNR to Reject Graymont Proposal

Save the Wild U.P. believes that public lands must be managed and conserved for public benefit. The Graymont sale sacrifices public lands for the benefit of a foreign mining company, although a majority of the citizens and taxpayers in the affected areas are vehemently opposed to the Graymont sale. The Graymont Proposal makes no sense, economically — while Graymont believes a handful of mining jobs would be created, residents believe that any short-term economic gain is far outweighed by the loss of existing, sustainable, long-term jobs in forestry and tourism sectors. The proposed land sale would include contiguous lands, “some of the most productive forest land in the Eastern Upper Peninsula,” public lands open to hunting and recreational trails, and supporting wildlife. Moreover, 38

the targeted area includes fragile habitat and critical ecosystems. These public lands support unique hydrology and biodiversity, which must be protected, including critical karst terrain featured in Michigan’s Natural Features Inventory, with globally-rare alvar plant communities, and northern fens supporting the endangered Hine's Emerald

38 Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

Dragonfly, considered “one of North America's rarest dragonflies.” 39

In opposing the proposed sale of lands and mineral rights to Graymont, Save the Wild U.P. affirms the conclusion of the Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition: “We can see absolutely no justification for the State to even consider the sale of such a large and important parcel of public land to a mining company, or any other private entity for that matter (...) this sale will undermine the public's confidence in the ability of MDNR to manage our public lands for the benefit of all citizens of this state.”

Save the Wild U.P. collectively voices our opposition concerning this unprecedented, environmentally-destructive sale of publicly held lands. The proposed sale would fail Michigan’s taxpayers, tribes, and the Eastern Upper Peninsula’s growing sustainable forest and tourism economies, and especially Michigan’s environment. We urge the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to reject the Graymont Proposal — both the Land Transaction and the Mineral Rights Sale — as being inconsistent with the DNR’s mission, and a bad deal for Michigan. Sincerely, Save the Wild U.P. Interim Director, Alexandra Maxwell Save the Wild U.P. President, Kathleen Heideman Save the Wild U.P. Board of Directors Save the Wild U.P. Advisory Board

Supporting File - “Pure Michigan” For Sale

Guest op-ed by Steve Garske, The Mining Journal, “Beware company’s land purchase plans” 40

Emerald forests. Cool streams. Beautiful lakes. Fall colors. Hunting. Fishing. Boating. Swimming. Getting away from it all. That's what most people think of when they think of Michigan’s state forests. So it may surprise you that under pressure from certain state politicians (particularly Sen. Tom Casperson) the Michigan DNR is considering selling a large chunk of the Lake Superior State Forest to a Canadian limestone mining and waste disposal company.

In November 2013 Graymont LLC requested that the DNR sell over 10,000 acres of state forest land in Mackinac, Chippewa and Luce Counties for a combination strip-mine and underground mine. Since then the proposal has quietly undergone an internal DNR “general review” and a draft agreement has been drawn up. The DNR has posted the “Graymont Land Transaction Packet”, a map and a 2-page fact sheet at http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10368_11797_66953---,00.html.

Missing from the website are the Land Transaction Agreement (only the Addendum is included) and July 2013 DNR general review.

The DNR staff review is highly critical of the sale because it would dispose of some of the state's most productive and diverse forest land, fragment state forest land ownership, limit access to adjacent state lands and make them harder to manage, threaten wildlife populations and cold-water trout streams, reduce hunting and other recreational opportunities, and cost millions in logging revenues.

Like other large-scale resource extraction schemes being proposed for the UP, this one is being touted as a “jobs” opportunity. Yet even the company estimates that their mining operation would employ only 4-6 people. While there

39 http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/grants/2007/s6IL_2007.html 40 http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/601151/Beware-company-s-land-purchase-plans.html

would be additional jobs in construction, those jobs would be temporary. Meanwhile logging and tourism jobs would be permanently lost.

In the land agreement the state agrees to a production tax of 20 cents per ton of limestone and dolomite extracted. In recent years, however, limestone has averaged $22 to $28 per ton on the world market. The company’s production goal for this project is 1 million tons per year, but they project a yearly profit of only $220,000. Their estimate seems ridiculously low though, because at current prices their annual revenue would be at least $22 million.

Amidst the controversy, one frightful provision of the draft agreement seems to have gone unnoticed. The Surface Agreement (Graymont Land Transaction Packet, Exhibit D-2, Section 2e) releases Graymont from “all claims obligations, and liabilities arising from or related to past, present, and future (i) generation, management, use, storage, treatment or disposal at the Property of any hazardous substances, solid waste, hazardous waste or liquid industrial waste”. It also exempts Graymont from “(ii) releases, migration or infiltration at, to or from the Property of Hazardous Substances.” Thus the agreement would allow Graymont to freely pollute the land and water with toxic waste.

According to the company's website, Graymont’s Ecowaste Industries Ltd. unit operates a landfill for yard waste, construction, demolition, and excavation materials in Richmond, British Columbia. One has to wonder if this toxic waste provision exists so that once the limestone is mined, Graymont can use the land as a waste dump.

The DNR's Fact sheet outlines a 14-step process for reviewing the application. After land appraisal is completed and approved (step 9), Graymont will sign a land transaction agreement (step 10). Only then will the public be given an opportunity to provide comment on the sale! Once the sale has gotten to the point of signing the land transaction agreement, momentum and political pressure to complete the deal will make the public comment meaningless.

Consolidation of political power in state government has resulted in a situation where the director of the Michigan DNR, Keith Creagh (a Snyder appointee), has sole authority to decide whether or not to sell this land to Graymont. If MDNR gets away with selling over 10,000 acres of prime state forest land to a private company, any state land could be sold.

Because this proposal hinges on the sale of Michigan STATE FOREST LAND, it is a STATE ISSUE. If you value Michigan's state forests and “Pure Michigan” environment, now is the time to speak up. Contact Keith Creagh at DNR-GraymontProposalComments@michigan.gov, and urge him to uphold the public trust and deny this land sale.