Looking at Irving’s proposal for a copper mine near Ashland last week, I remembered what mining did to a Pennsylvania stream I fished in 1990.

Fresh out of college, I was working in Newark, N.J, wondering where the nearest brook trout might be. I quickly discovered the great trout streams that flow through central Pennsylvania. Single and broke, I spent most of my weekends exploring those streams. Pennsylvania streams look different than Maine’s, but their trout take the same flies.

One Saturday, I fished a new stream, taking a nice brook trout from the first pool. A bit downstream, a tributary dumped in. When a dozen casts failed to connect, I walked down and saw why. The bottom of the tributary was brick-red, every rock covered with a thick coat of rust. The stream was dead — not a bug or a fish or even a frog. And below the confluence my stream was dead too, for as far as I could see.

It was “acid mine drainage,” or AMD. AMD forms when buried geologic formations are exposed to air and water. A complex set of chemical reactions yields highly acidic water and toxic levels of metals. Aquatic life is poisoned out of the water.

In the West Branch Susquehanna watershed, where I was fishing that day, there are over 1,200 miles of AMD-impaired streams. AMD from copper, gold and silver mines in places such as Montana and Nevada kills fish too.

So when I read about a proposed copper and gold mine in the headwaters of the Fish River — and Irving’s request that Maine relax its mining laws to make it easier to develop — I worried.

First, I found the mine site on the DeLorme. Clayton Lake, a wild brook trout pond, is just a mile and a half south. Carr Pond, another wild brook pond, is less than two miles to the north. Carr Pond Stream runs off the north side of Bald Mountain, through Carr Pond, then meets Clayton Stream coming off the west side of Bald Mountain to form the Fish River. Two miles downstream is Fish River Lake, with wild brook trout, salmon and togue.

A little phone and Internet research increased my worry. A literature review for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska concludes no “hard rock surface mines exist today that can demonstrate that AMD can be stopped once it occurs on a large scale. … Permitting large scale surface mining in sulfide-hosted rock … imparts a substantial and unquantifiable risk to water quality and fisheries.”

A colleague in Montana tells me of a review that says 90 percent of metal sulfide mines cause AMD. The Bald Mountain mine site — and the majority of other possible mine sites in Maine — is in “sulfide-hosted rock.”

The last-minute process by which the Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee is reviewing this proposal is, simply put, just as scary. The sole public hearing was scheduled with less than a week’s notice. The bill was hand-delivered by lobbyists on the day before the hearing.

Some of us who testified received the bill — all 22 pages of it — 18 hours before the hearing, but only because we were on the committee clerk’s email list. The rest of the public still cannot get a copy of the bill on the Legislature’s website. Irving’s team of out-of-state lawyers and consultants are demanding the Legislature review and approve this new bill in a matter of days.

We — the Maine people who will have to live with the legacy of this decision forever — are being asked to “just trust us.” We have no time to review the issue carefully, ask experts in other states how they deal with these types of mines or even read the proposal before we testify.

In a state where it’s common to have a stakeholder group and several years of review for even minor changes in environmental law, we are being asked to endorse sweeping changes overnight.

One change renders moot all existing mining laws and rules. Another allows ore processing and disposal of tailings in the floodplain. A third insists that any soil near a mineral deposit is, by definition, “suitable.”

Maine has a proud history of balancing our natural resource-based economy with outstanding environmental protection. We have a tradition of taking the time to get things right. We need to do that now before we lose the nation’s best brook trout resource to a set of rules drafted to meet Irving’s bottom line.

Jeff Reardon of Manchester is the Maine brook trout project director for Trout Unlimited.

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

  1. Jeff,

    (Oh to catch areally big trout..one of my unrealized dreams)

    I too have been thinking a lot about  J.D. Irvings announced interest in mining for gold at Bald Mountain which they own along with huge untold numbers of acres along the New Brunswick Boarder.  I have been pondering what direction is implied by the enigmatic  ” mining reform” dropped into the frenzy of end of session legislation.

    At the moment minining is not allowed in unorganizaed territoy except in a developmnet area..similar in concept to the idea underlying the Plum Creek Proposal,  So, as I undersand it J.D. Irving ( as in Irving Oil,,a ginormous Canadaian Corporation) could apply for such a district and possibly be allowed to mine for gold under some language on mining that is in the LURC and hopefully we could net a huge mega huge conservation concerssion in the trade..profit for protection is the idea of the development districts.

    I am very concerned though at mining being overseen by the LURC and even more alarmed at the idea of moving it  to DEP.

    I think we should have an industry funded Mining & Natural Resources Extraction Board” to handle these deals ( so we could hire top gun negotiators) annd also so we would have continuous authroty and superision over miniing operations including shut down and of couse over mine safety for our residents who might be employed there..

    I guess the question Irvings interest poses to “we the people” is, can this be contained and carried out in a way that poses no harm to water and streams and is not a scenic nuisance?  How much permanent consersation would we the peope want to allow J.D. Iinrving the opportnity to explore this profit potential and do we wnat it around the potential mine site or in other of J.D. Irvings holdings?

    So what do you think? Is there any trade or concession that you would consider in exchange for mining Bald Mountain?

  2. Dear Maine,,,
    Are you people out of your flipping minds??? The legislature has actually allowed this bill on the floor? You are willing to risk millions in tourism cash and the thousands of jobs that come with it for the benefit of one Canadian company?
    Insanity is running rampant in Augusta.

  3. Jeff – a well written commentary, thanks for investing the time and energy to do the research.  Please include any Bill numbers and where the Bill is or when it will be voted on in future comments on this issue.  We’d like to know what to do about it and when. 

    1. Dear Gallander..forgive me jumping in,Jeff may not be monitoring this blog.  The bill is LD1853.  It has been ammended but I am not sure the ammended version is available yet on line. 

       In effect it is a corporate opt out of LURC for all metallic mining.

      So what it does is allow anyonne who wants to mine for metals ( onne of themost environmentally destructive processes of extraction you can imagine) to just name the minining parcel via permt to DEP and upon approval are automatically opted out  of the limitations otherwise imposed on ining under LURCs quite good existing regulations.

      Mining is not allowed in the unorganized territories  but LURC’s Depevelopment process also allowsa zoning change for a designated parcel   and sets very through and very professional standards on buffer areas, impact etc..  Basically LD 1853 forgoes all of that.

      JD Irving, owner of Bald mountain has never before applied to the LURC  for a devlopment zone to undertake goldmining at Bald Mountain. The Gold was discovered some time ago.

      It is important to understannd that mining operations are not as of right and that this corporate opt ou tby passes all public accountability and all sound planning and zoning already in place.

      The Stat eis very clearly 100% committed to this.  100% committed to getinng it done in the next few weeks.  DEP is the official spokes agency.  LURC is totally out of the process already.

      This is how corporate influence wors.  This is the daily story in our lehsylatoure..corpoaryins dictating public hearig schedules, legislative initaives and the reorganization of state agencies to suite their profit agendas.

      It’s not baout Citizens’a United.  It’s about the daily sausage factory right here in our own legislature.
        

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *