Permitting Aggregate Mines in Michigan Poses Very Serious Consequences

view map & data

Permitting of non-metallic mines (such as frac sand mines) in Michigan varies significantly across municipalities. This two-part series discusses the terms of these permitting processes, with examples of how activists and residents have used this framework to fight infrastructure permitting.

This is the second in a two-part series written by Mike Wilczynski, certified professional geologist with Pangea Environmental, LLC, and member of Friends of the Platte River Watershed. Mike lives in Detroit.

As stated in Part 1, under the state’s Zoning Enabling Act (ZEA), aggregate mines in Michigan can only be denied for specific reasons. These are a lack of demonstrated need for the aggregate, or a lack of demonstrated value of the deposit. The need and value then need to be balanced against the potential very serious consequences (VSC) that may occur. The ZEA limits the VSCs to the following, taken directly from the ZEA:

5) In determining under this section whether very serious consequences would result from the extraction, by mining, of natural resources, the standards set forth in Silva v Ada Township, 416 Mich 153 (1982), shall be applied and all of the following factors may be considered, if applicable:

(a) The relationship of extraction and associated activities with existing land uses.

(b) The impact on existing land uses in the vicinity of the property.

(c) The impact on property values in the vicinity of the property and along the proposed hauling route serving the property, based on credible evidence.

(d) The impact on pedestrian and traffic safety in the vicinity of the property and along the proposed hauling route serving the property.

(e) The impact on other identifiable health, safety, and welfare interests in the local unit of government.

(f) The overall public interest in the extraction of the specific natural resources on the property.

When a serious consequence become a VSC is a matter of debate, and sometimes is settled in court.

Michigan Sand, Gravel, and Other Mines

This is a map of Michigan sand, gravel, and commodity mines. The data for this map was comprised form multiple sources including archived Michigan EAGLE documents and the Western Michigan University. Map developed by Ted Auch of FracTracker Alliance. View the map “Details” tab below in the top left corner to learn more and access the data, or click on the map to explore the dynamic version of this data. Data sources are also listed at the end of this article. In order to turn layers on and off in the map, use the Legend dropdown menu. This tool is only available in Full Screen view. Items will activate in this map dependent on the level of zoom in or out.

View Full Size Map | Updated 3/15/2022 | Map Tutorial

VSCs of mining operations

However, silica is a potential serious health concern near mines that extract silica rich deposits—such as mines in glacial deposits for sand and gravel, or high quartz bedrock for frac sand, glass, and other industrial uses.

Silica is quartz, one of the most common rock-forming minerals. It makes up much of the sand size and finer material in glacial deposits. It is also the main mineral in sandstone that is mined for frac sand.

Silica can cause silicosis, lung cancer, and other serious health problems. At one location in Michigan, where dust control has been a longstanding problem, the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services is conducting an environmental study because of the apparent cluster of illnesses around a sand and gravel mine.

Rock crushing operations in Michigan are required to get a General Permit for air quality under Part 55 of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). This permit does not require monitoring for airborne silica leaving the mine site. Workers’ exposure is controlled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), but across the property line, residents are exposed to unknown quantities of airborne silica. Airborne Particulate Matter (PM) of any type has the potential to impact human health.

Groundwater and surface water—including wetlands—are commonly associated with the mining of sand and gravel glacial deposits and bedrock deposits for frac sand. The geological processes that left the sand and gravel glacial outwash deposits form wetlands, lakes, and streams. The bedrock deposits for frac sand are generally below the glacial deposits or the groundwater table. An understanding of the subsurface geology of the site and surrounding area are critical in an evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater or surface water, and these potential impacts can also affect the economic “value” of the mined resources.

An improper or total lack of the consideration of the geology and how the water will flow across the surface and/or in the subsurface has resulted in environmental problems that could have been prevented.

Wetlands, farm ponds, and natural springs have been adversely impacted as the result of poor hydrogeological studies, and a lack of enforcement of state laws by local units of government (LUGS) and the Michigan Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).

Understaffing and underfunding of EGLE is greatly responsible. Retirements have left the Department with inexperienced staff, who many times from our experience do not have the education and/or experience properly to enforce environmental laws.

Hydrogeology, or the study of groundwater, can be complicated, and computer models can be used to further complicate the review of an application by the LUG. Not all LUGs have someone on staff to review properly the geological/hydrogeological reports—if one is even submitted.

Traffic and pedestrian safety is a valid reason to deny an aggregate mine. Gravel trucks can require a quarter mile to stop, even under ideal conditions. Insufficient sight distances because of curves and hills near intersections, stoplights, or school bus stops are valid reasons to deny a mine, and have been used successfully. In one location, the constant heavy truck traffic is impacting the foundations of historic buildings.

How an aggregate mine fits into the surrounding land uses should be considered in a review. People move to an area for a reason, such as a quiet rural setting. Using this as a reason to deny the mine can become difficult to show. Strong public interest in stopping the mine can lend much needed support to the argument that the mine does not further the character of the area and would disrupt the lives of the residents.

Watching the review process as a mining geologist is a frustrating experience.

The restriction of only having two to three minutes to speak and voice concerns adds to the frustration. Written reports are not always read or understood by the officials deciding. There is no way to tell if they correctly understood the information without feedback. The mine applicant has almost unlimited time to speak in favor of the mine, while residents and experts are limited to several minutes to refute multiple claims that involve complicated issues.

The process is skewed in favor of the mine applicant, and the decision-making process is not always transparent. Mine applicants have been known to threaten legal action against the LUG if they deny the mine. Rural townships with low populations where most mines are located have limited resources to fight international corporations. It is unfortunate that they can ignore the enforcement of state and federal environmental laws in order to avoid legal action and legal bills a LUG cannot afford. The lack of support from EGLE related to the enforcement of state environmental laws adds to the problem.