Interest in Graymont Proposal Concerns about Graymont Proposal

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).1 It is
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” 3 given its high
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
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)
3
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.”6 Emphasizing hypothetical financial assurances during the DNR’s review process
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
6
​ttp://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=971131
h
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”7 there is a great deal of overlap in the review process, in Graymont's Proposal, and especially in any
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
8
​ttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/EUPCAC_2014_January_23_Meeting_Minutes_453995_7.pdf
h
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.12 Not only may some visitors to the area suddenly find fences blocking their
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
​ttp://www.9and10news.com/story/23951620/mixed-opinions-on-mining-proposal-in-the-upper-peninsula
h
http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/556897.html
​
10
11
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/15/upper-peninsula-graymont-limestone-mining-land-sa
le/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
14
​ttp://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm
h
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.”15 Citizens who attended public meetings and expressed
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
16
​ttp://www.thetimesherald.com/story/sports/outdoors/2015/01/22/dnr-close-decision-huge-mine/22184415/
h
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... ”17 Given the
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
18
​ttp://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5308167.pdf
h
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."19 For a region facing *both* water quality and
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
​ttp://web2.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/groundwater.html
h
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
​
19
20
Michigan led to significant drops in groundwater levels, as measured by USGS in surrounding wells. 23 ​
And special
biological consideration should be given to the fact that limestone sinkholes and caves "provide habitat and
hibernacula for bats"24 — especially in light of new threats to endangered and karst-specific species,25 and U.P. bat
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. “Humaninduced subsidence is caused principally by groundwater withdrawal, drainage of organic soils, and underground
mining.”26 Given the scale of the proposed Graymont project, it should be concluded that groundwater withdrawal
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
​ttp://mi.water.usgs.gov/pubs/OF/OF01-498/OF01-498LW.php
h
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
​
23
24
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 invertebrates32
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.”33 The promise
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.
​ttp://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/reports/2006-01_Hines_Emerald_Dragonfly.pdf
h
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
​
30
31
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
35
​ttp://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm
h
http://www.cardenplainimportantbirdarea.com/threats.htm
​
36
http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/33411_FSPLT
1_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,”38 public lands open to hunting and recreational trails, and supporting wildlife. Moreover,
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
40
​ttp://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/grants/2007/s6IL_2007.html
h
​ttp://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/601151/Beware-company-s-land-purchase-plans.html
h
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.