BIG BAY -- At his camp on the northern edge of the Yellow Dog Plains in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Rico Torreano can hear tapping woodpeckers, a gurgling spring and even the occasional wolf howl.
More recently, another sound has come through clearly and persistently: the beep-beep of backup alarms on construction vehicles at the site of a planned nickel and copper mine just over a mile away.
Kennecott Minerals Co. still faces regulatory and legal obstacles to building the mine, which it calls the "Eagle Project," but already is clearing land and making other preparations at the site in northwestern Marquette County.
It would be Michigan's first mining operation governed by a nonferrous mining law enacted in 2004 and a subsequent package of regulations designed to protect the environment.
That makes it a test case for government officials and environmentalists -- and for companies exploring other potential mining sites. If Eagle Project goes forward, "you'll have a pretty significant uptick of direct mining activity here," said Shea McGrew, vice president for advancement at Michigan Tech University, which has a long association with the industry.
Some area residents welcome the jobs and economic boost the mine would provide. Others fear damage to groundwater and rivers that flow into Lake Superior, and loss of peace and quiet.
"It would be the end of the Upper Peninsula as we know it," said Torreano, 45, whose family has owned the camp on 40 forested acres for nearly two decades. "It'll be power lines, roads, noise, pollution."
John Koski, a planning commission member in nearby Champion Township, acknowledged mixed emotions about potential changes to the landscape. But his overriding sentiment was summed up by the bumper sticker he took to a community meeting this fall. It read: "Mining supports my family and pays my taxes."
"My grandparents came from Finland in the late 1800s and early 1900s to work the mines, and my father was a hardrock miner," said Koski, 51. "I don't have a fear of it as long as the science and oversight are OK."
The state Department of Environmental Quality granted operating permits for the Kennecott project a year ago. In February, the Department of Natural Resources agreed to lease 120 acres of state land for surface buildings and infrastructure.
Kennecott also needs a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permit to inject treated mine wastewater into the ground. The proposed system is common in the oil and gas industry but rare for a mine, said Stephen Roy, an EPA geologist overseeing the company's application.
That's another concern for Torreano, who fears the wastewater will pollute and cause flooding in springs flowing near his camp. For now, the water is so pure he drinks it without fear. The company says its discarded industrial water will exceed drinking water standards.
Opponents have sued the DNR while appealing the DEQ's permit decision to a state administrative law judge who heard testimony over 42 days last spring and summer. The judge, Richard A. Patterson, is expected to issue an opinion at any time, although DEQ Director Steven Chester has the final call.
During the administrative hearing, attorneys for opposition groups contended the DEQ had mishandled the Kennecott application, repeatedly failing to uphold regulatory standards. They showed that expert consultants -- some hired by the DEQ itself -- had raised questions about the mine's design.
Critics fear its rock ceiling would be unstable and could collapse, a danger not just to miners working underground but to the Salmon Trout River, home to the rare coaster brook trout. Part of the chamber would extend beneath the river's headwaters.
"If this project gets approval, the message to industry will be that we're going to allow anything in Michigan -- literally anything," said Michelle Halley, attorney for the National Wildlife Foundation. "Just come in and do whatever you want."
Kennecott project manager Jon Cherry insisted the design is sound and promised extensive steps to prevent sulfide ores from generating acidic drainage by coming in contact with surface air and water.
Robert McCann, spokesman for the DEQ, said many of the objections critics have raised were addressed as Kennecott refined its plans and responded to dozens of questions the DNR submitted before granting the permits.
"This project got one of the most thorough reviews of any project this department's ever looked at," he said. "The law set a high standard that had to be met and ... they met it."
Regardless of how Chester eventually rules, the case is likely to wind up in court. Both the company and its opponents believe the law is on their side.
Print this story
E-mail this story
