New Sulfide Mining Rules Good Enough?

Environmentalists disagree over whether new mining rules will do enough to protect the waters of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists disagree over whether new mining rules will do
enough to protect the waters of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:


A type of mining called deep-shaft sulfide mining is controversial. That’s
because it can cause sulfuric acid to get into the waterways.


Under new rules in Michigan, companies that want to open mines will
have to prove absolutely no toxins will escape the mine and pollute soil,
ground water, or surface waters. That’s even once the mine’s been shut
down.


Marvin Roberson is a Sierra Club representative who helped shape the
regulations.


“That’s an extremely high standard. The fact of the matter is, I think it’s
going to be very, very difficult for most applicants to meet the standards
that are set in this, and those that do will be pretty clearly opening
facilities that won’t be causing environmental harm.”


But an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation says there are some
areas where erosion, landslides, or water pollution can’t be prevented,
and the new rules don’t restrict where a mine can be built.


For the GLRC, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Holy Grail of Great Lakes Shipwrecks Found?

  • For a long time, anything any diver salvaged could be claimed as his or her own. Since the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987, anything divers find on public land remains public. But a new discovery may bend some rules. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:

Transcript

A shipwreck hunter believes he might have found what’s been described as the Holy Grail of Great Lakes wrecks. His find has triggered a new debate over who can lay claim to historic shipwrecks and what should happen to them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sally Eisele reports:


Of the thousands of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, the wreck of the Griffin is probably the most legendary. For a few reasons. She was built by somebody legendary – French explorer Rene-Robert Cavalier Sieur de La Salle, she was the first European ship to sail the Upper Great Lakes… and she was the first to sink. Actually, she sank on her maiden voyage in 1769, not exactly one of La Salle’s bigger success stories. But the mystery she left behind is pretty big – and it has pretty well flummoxed Great Lakes historians for hundreds of years. Shipwreck scholar Steven Herald is the director of the Manistee County Historical Museum.


“The Griffin loaded its first and only freight cargo downbound at Green Bay, and there has never been a reliable report of anyone who has seen the vessel since. It left Green Bay and disappeared totally.”


Did she run aground? Sink to the bottom of Lake Michigan? No one knows, But Steven Libert, a long-time shipwreck hunter, thinks he might have found a clue. What he’s excited about appears to be a long, wooden pole sticking out of the sand in about 80 feet of water in northwestern Lake Michigan. It doesn’t look like much. But Rick Robol, the attorney for Libert’s company Great Lakes Exploration, says tests indicate it could date back to the 17th century. And it could be part of a ship.


“Great Lakes Exploration does not know at this point what is there. And it does not know whether in fact it is the Griffin or not. Certainly if it were the Griffin, it would be a very substantial find.”


Great Lakes Exploration has filed suit in federal court seeking salvage rights to the site. But the site is in Michigan waters and the state has filed a motion to have the case dismissed. State archaeologist John Halsey says whatever there is should belong to the public, not a private company.


“They have the money to go out and look, they have the money to go out and find, but what they don’t have is the permission to bring stuff up. That’s where the rubber meets the road.”


The state argues the Federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives any state title to historic wrecks in its waters. Before its passage, pretty much anybody in a rubber suit could salvage shipwrecks. And they did – the evidence is rusting out in garages across the country. The federal law sought to protect these historic sites – which, in the cold fresh water of the Great Lakes, are often well-preserved time capsules. But Wisconsin shipwreck researcher, Brendon Baillod, says a number of cases have already shown the law is full of technical loopholes if you have the money and time to challenge it.


“We have a lot of wrecks that are open game legally. It really is up to the judge who gets the case before them.”


If Great Lakes Exploration does clear the legal hurdles, the next question will be academic. What should happen to their findings? Attorney Rick Robol says it all depends on what’s there.


“Really, shipwrecks have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. There are some shipwrecks that may best remain in situ, that is, on site, and there are other that should be recovered. It’s impossible to determine what’s best for a particular wreck without first scientifically studying it.”


At this stage, it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the site contains the remains of a ship or just a pile of very old scrapwood. But preservationists such as historian Steven Herald, argue anything of historical value should really just be left there.


“I’m a great one for leaving it where it is and studying it in as much detail as possible. The easiest way to preserve it is to keep it there.”


One thing is certain, any excavation would likely involve many years and millions of dollars. Oh, and there’s another possibility too, if in fact the Griffin is found. Technically, the vessel still belongs to France, which was in charge around here after all at the time of La Salle’s adventures.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sally Eisele.

Related Links

New Law Requires Seafood Labeling

  • A new law states that labels on the majority of seafood will need to list the country of origin. Some are worried about the amount of time and money this will cost. (Photo by Ivan Pok)

Seafood lovers will soon know where their dinner was caught. A new U.S. law requires most seafood to have a label that names the country it came from. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:

Transcript

Seafood lovers will now know where their dinner was caught. A new U.S. law requires most seafood to have a label that names the country it came from. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:


The label will tell the country of origin and whether the seafood was farmed or wild. Processed foods like canned tuna or fishsticks will be exempt and smaller stores won’t be required to label their food.


The new law is supported by some in the fishing industry who think shoppers would rather buy seafood caught in U.S. waters. But other suppliers and retailers complain the law is forced marketing and has nothing to do with food safety.


Linda Candler is with the National Fisheries Institute. She says it will cost billions of dollars for the industry to keep track of all the necessary information.


“We’ve already heard from several retailers that, in order to keep their record keeping to a manageable level, they will cut the number of their suppliers. Meaning, they’ll have less flexibility in price.”


The law is now in effect. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture won’t enforce it for six months. They say that will give the industry some time to adjust to new requirements.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links