Michigan Coaster Brook Trout Update
Metallic sulfide mining on the Yellow Dog Plains threatens the last remaining naturally reproducing population of the potamodromous Coaster Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) on the southern shore of Lake Superior. Because the trout is not located within the boundaries of the actual mine site, Kennecott Mineral’s Environmental Impact Assessment makes no mention of the trout that its operations would invariably impact.[1]
On April 10, 2007, Patrick Kochanny, Chairman of Michigan Trout Unlimited (MCTU) issued a press release stating that “Trout Unlimited and the Michigan Council strongly oppose this project, and believe that it is in the best interest of the State of Michigan and the Salmon Trout River to deny Kennecott’s application at this time.”[2
Kochanny continued: “We are seriously concerned that [the DEQ’s] analysis and review of the permit application may not have been conducted properly.”
This recent position offers a refreshing contrast to MCTU’s previously tepid statements regarding the proposed project.
In February, 2006, the Sierra Club and Huron Mountain Club (HMC) filed a joint petition with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to seek protection for the Coaster Brook Trout, under the Endangered Species Act.[3] USFWS has not taken action nor have the Sierra Club and HMC countered that inaction with a lawsuit.
Carefully ignoring any specifics of the potential threat to the Coasters, the Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited issued a statement, in response to the petition:
“Trout Unlimited’s primary concern is with the protection and recovery of coaster brook trout. For the past ten years, we have worked with state, federal and tribal partners to support critical research, strengthen regulations, and improve habitat these fish depend on for their survival. We need to build on these efforts to expand and accelerate coaster brook trout protection. The means to recovery – whether through habitat restoration and other management actions or the application of the Endangered Species Act – is less important than the ultimate result that these remarkable fish are recovered.”[4]
Certain MCTU local chapters have gone further by insinuating support of the project. Doug Miller, president of the Fred Waara chapter of Trout Unlimited said “it is in Kennecott’s best interest to protect the environment….this company has deep pockets; if something goes wrong, they do have the resources to fix it…we would rather not see a mine on the Yellow Dog Plains, but I believe we need to face reality. If we use the resources then we will have mines. If we have mines, then we need strong regulations to ensure the environment is protected. Instead of trying to kill Kennecott, we should be working in coordination with other environmental groups to ensure that we get the resources that we all seem to want and protect the environment as well.”[5]
There was a degree of frustration at the Wisconsin chapter of Trout Unlimited over Michigan’s inability to effectively protect the trout from the proposed project. In March, 2007, Bill Pielsticker, Legislative Chair of Wisconsin TU said that they “will do what [they] can to see that it is protected. However, we are quite limited….and may be restricted to support for actions [sic] by Michigan TU.”[6]
Following the MCTU press release, Miller says that Fred Waara TU’s position on the project “coincides with that of the Michigan chapter.” Kochanny said this position was made at a March 30, 2007 meeting, following an extensive review of Kennecott’s mining application by “outside experts” and commented that “there is no room for error” when considering projected impacts to the Salmon-Trout River spawning grounds.
4 Michigan Chapter TU “TU Statement Regarding Proposal to List Coasters Under the ESA,” MCTU Website
5 Miller, Doug Fred Waara TU Opinion Paper, 2005
6 Pielsticker, Bill (Wisconsin TU), E-mail exchange, March 14, 2007
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate