Home    News    February 2003

News from the Keweenaw Peninsula Posted February 14, 2003 Text © 2003 Michele Anderson. File Photos © Keweenaw Now.

Conservancy seeks funds for Bete Grise South

MARQUETTE -- The Nature Conservancy (TNC) could purchase about 1,000 acres at Bete Grise South to preserve delicate wetland habitat and Lake Superior shoreline if funding becomes available soon.

Bete Grise South, an area along the eastern shore of the Keweenaw Peninsula, south of Lac La Belle and the Mendota Lighthouse, includes a stretch of both shoreline and near shoreline wetland communities identified by TNC, The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) as the single most important estuarine Great Lakes Marsh remaining in the Upper Great Lakes of the United States.*

"This striking dune and swale wetland system is deserving of long-term, immediate protection," said Jeff Knoop, TNC director of land protection for the western Upper Peninsula.

This photo shows a view of the beach at Bete Grise South on the eastern shore of the Keweenaw Peninsula. Along the beach is a delicate wetland area considered a rare Great Lakes Marsh. The Nature Conservancy would like to purchase about 1,000 acres of the wetland, including 6000 ft. of lakefront, for preservation and public access. (File photo by Michele Anderson)

Knoop said the conservancy is now trying to raise at least $100,000 as soon as possible in order to hold the land for a written purchase agreement with landowner International Paper/Lake Superior Land Co. (IP/LSLC). This amount would be necessary as earnest money to hold the property until the conservancy can raise enough money to purchase the property.

Knoop said TNC and IP/LSLC have verbally agreed on a price which is in the range of fair market value, estimated at about $1.5 million.

The area of this potential purchase is proposed to include all the lands south of the Mendota Canal in Section 34 T58N-R29W, all of Section 3, all of Section 2, 120 acres of Section 10 and a large portion of Section 11 T57N-R29W). This includes abut 6,000 ft. of Lake Superior frontage and all frontage still owned by IP/LSLC on the south side of the Mendota Canal.

However, IP/LSLC has told TNC that the deal is contingent on IP/LSLC's receiving a DEQ permit for a road and bridge to access a proposed residential development -- a permit which they expect to receive on Feb. 14, 2003. The company has been negotiating with the DEQ for more than two years in a contested case following the DEQ's denial of their permit application in July 2000. While the original application was for an access road through the wetland to access the upland development site, the applicant's plans have since changed to include a 140-ft. timber bridge over the wetland. TNC, of course, hopes to buy the land in order to prevent the bridge and road from being built in the wetland.

Walt Arnold, IP/LSLC director of marketing and sales, said on Feb. 13, 2003, that the company hopes TNC will be able to purchase the property, but in the event the conservancy doesn't come up with the funds the permit will be needed.

"As soon as we have our permit for the road, we will be talking to TNC," Arnold said. "We need the permit to have the final appraisal, which sets the value that we can negotiate with TNC."

He noted it is in TNC's best interest to lock up the deal with the earnest deposit -- 10 percent of the purchase price -- a contract required to hold the land.

"We're hoping to get going on it soon," Arnold said. "As soon as even the draft permit is issued, we can get moving on it."

Knoop said an obstacle is TNC's present financial situation of needing to pay back loans and interest for their purchase of other Keweenaw properties and their brokerage of the Keweenaw Tip Purchase by the State of Michigan (The second half of this purchase is to be finalized in March 2003 but TNC must still pay interest not reimbursed by the state.)

Gina Nicholas, Grant Township resident and member of the township's Land Use Planning Committee, expressed strong support for The Nature Conservancy's effort to purchase the property at Bete Grise South.

"We should do everything in our power to help The Nature Conservancy accomplish the purchase of Bete Grise South as soon as IP is ready to sell," Nicolas notes. "Bete Grise South is the highest quality freshwater marsh/bog in the Great Lakes and one of Keweenaw's most beautiful and scenic beaches. Keeping Bete Grise South intact will allow continued public access to this special spot and preserve a high quality natural habitat for a variety of species including sandhill cranes and bald eagles."

Anyone wishing to contribute to The Nature Conservancy's fund for purchasing Bete Grise South may send donations to: The Nature Conservancy, Attention Jeff Knoop, 125 W. Washington St., Suite G, Marquette, MI 49855. Indicate that the contribution is for Bete Grise South. Contributions are tax-deductible.

Residents question bridge plan

Some Keweenaw residents have questioned IP/LSLC's plan for a bridge at Bete Grise South since it was added to the original application during the contested case negotiations without a public notice.

"How can they change the whole concept without applying for a new permit?" asked Tom Collins, president of the South Shore Association (SSA), a community association of more than 100 property owners on the South Shore areas from Lac La Belle to Betsy.

Collins noted the SSA is going to support TNC's efforts to buy Bete Grise South.

"We will be asking people to donate money to TNC for this potential purchase," Collins said.

Grant Township resident Paul Campbell said he recently acquired a 1974 report by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., planning and engineering consultants, which includes maps showing different wetlands in the Bete Grise area. The report was done for Universal Oil Products Co. when they owned the land now owned by IP/LSLC.

"The information that I saw in that 1974 report included plans for development of Bete Grise South, but the scientific and environmental studies in the report suggest that the wetlands 'impose severe limitations on building,''' Campbell said.

Jim Mihelcic, a seasonal Keweenaw resident who has a Ph.D. in civil engineering and 20 years of experience working as an environmental/civil engineer, recently wrote to Kim Rice, field coordinator for the DEQ Geological and Land Management Division in Lansing, who is expected to issue the permit for the road and bridge. Mihelcic questions two important items in IP/LSLC's revised plan for the access road and bridge: 1) the potential for invasion by non-native species and 2) the environmental effects of the proposed use of pentachlorophenol-treated wood for construction of the bridge.

In his letter, Mihelcic says the revised documents from the applicant (their Revised Feasible and Prudent Alternatives Analysis dated July 11, 2002, and an Addendum dated Oct. 11, 2002) for the permit application lack a convincing plan to prevent the introduction of exotic species through the fill used for construction and the vehicular traffic from construction of the road and development of the proposed residential site.

Mihelcic notes the proposed development "will surely introduce exotic species through the placement of large amounts of fill to the area. Neither document addresses where the fill will be obtained, how the contractor will ensure this fill does not contain exotic species, and what the volume of fill is required. It does appear that the amount of required fill is quite large as the proposed area of impact was estimated as 21,075 square feet."

Concerning the vehicular traffic, he writes, "I can not emphasize the importance that automobile and truck traffic have on introduction of nonnative plants. For example, a recent research study completed at Michigan Tech shows that nonnative earthworms are radically changing the forest floor in the northern U.S., imperiling some rare native plants in the process. The earthworms are believed to come from vehicles. For example, egg cases are accidentally introduced from a chunk of mud stuck to a tire. The reason for the linkage of the introduction of the exotic species to vehicular traffic in the Michigan Tech study was because the sites with the most nonnative earthworms were located near roadways (for more information on this research, see http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/news/media_relations/57 )."

Mihelcic  notes the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service have also conducted studies showing the disturbance of construction creates an environment favorable to exotic species, and vehicles contribute to the spread of invasive species by carrying seeds attached to their undercarriage and tires and depositing them miles away (especially along the sides of roads).

"As one example of a possible exotic species, purple loosestrife thrives on disturbed, moist soils, often invading after some type of construction activity," Mihelcic says. "Eradicating an established stand is difficult because of an enormous number of seeds in the soil. For example, one adult plant can disperse 2 million seeds annually. The plant is also able to re-grow from roots and broken stems that fall to the ground or into the water."

IP/LSLC, in their July 11, 2002, Revised Alternatives Analysis, quote Richard Wolinski of DEQ Land and Water Management Division (now called the Geological and Land Management Division) as expressing concern about the presence of purple loosestrife in the Bete Grise South area.

The document states, "Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant species and could potentially become established in the wetland, not only by the method of concern to the DEQ along the proposed road, but by introduction via wind-borne seed transport, or by birds or mammals carrying the seed into the wetland on their feathers, hair, or fur. Due to the fact that the proposed road is 'downstream' and downwind (prevailing westerly winds) from the poor fen, the likelihood of introduction of purple loosestrife into the poor fen as a result of the proposed road is further minimized."

Mihelcic notes non-native seeds are transported to a large degree not by wind (which he notes is not always from the west) but by vehicular traffic.

Mihelcic also questions "how the introduction of penta-treated lumber (for the bridge) will potentially impact plants and animals in the wetland, and how the leaching of some penta into the aquatic environment may (or may not) create an environment that benefits the growth non-native species that are introduced from construction and vehicle traffic."

He cites two scientific studies that show Pentachlorophenol has been shown to exist in soils for up to five years and is a concern to aquatic environments.

Mihelcic concludes that the new documents supplied by IP/LSLC as part of the contested case negotiations have insufficient detail for the DEQ to make a sound, scientific judgment on the permit application.

U.S. Army Corps to re-evaluate project

Should the DEQ issue a permit for the access road and bridge, the United States Army Corps, who also denied the original permit application (a denial "without prejudice" required by law because of the state's permit denial), would have to decide whether to issue a permit, based on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredge or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands.

Rich Gutleber, regulatory field officer for the U.S. Army Corps in Marquette, said the Corps would re-evaluate the project once they have seen the DEQ decision. The Corps' decision depends, he said, on what changes have been made to the original plans and what impacts these changes will have.

As for the bridge, Gutleber said things that don't require fill won't need a permit, but he would look at footings of the bridge, shading effect, changes in vegetation, and run-off.

"We would focus on those (secondary) impacts that would be attributable to the issuing of a permit," he said.

Gutleber noted the Army Corps would not automatically issue a permit just because the DEQ issued it. The Corps will study the overall project according to what is under federal jurisdiction under Section 404. The Corps could, he said, add additional conditions to cover areas over which they have jurisdiction even though the state does not.

"It's not a rubber stamp," he said.

Gutleber said he had not yet seen the new plan for the bridge project.

In the July 2000 denial of the permit application, the DEQ had written to IP/LSLC that the proposed project would have "significant adverse impact on the natural resources associated with the wetland." The denial was based on criteria of Part 17, Environmental Protection, and Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended (NREPA).**

At that time the DEQ had also supported its denial of the permit on the premise that "a feasible and prudent alternative exists."

Intervenors oppose revised plans for bridge and road

Timothy Bureau, president of Resource Management Group, Inc., Environmental Planners and Consultants of Grand Haven, Mich.-- who is a third party, or intervenor, in the contested case along with Mendota Lighthouse owner Gary Kohs -- has written several letters to the DEQ objecting to IP/LSLC's Revised Feasible and Prudent Alternatives Analysis of July 11, 2002, and the Addendum of Oct. 11, 2002.

Bureau, who spoke at public hearings on July 14, 1999, and May 1, 2000, with extensive comments on the reasons for denying the permit, has also criticized IP/LSLC's revised plans for several reasons, including these:

•  The plans include dredging that has not been public noticed.
•  The DEQ has not addressed, or required the applicant to address, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concerns about protection of the historical property in the area, namely the Mendota Lighthouse.
• The DEQ correspondence since the public hearings does not address the presence of wildlife -- nesting eagles, nesting loons, and wolf movement through the site (plus unconfirmed reports of the piping plover using the beach area).
• The submittal addresses neither the potential for storm damage and wave-driven damage to the road nor the damming effect the road will cause during Lake Superior storm surges or during spring runoff and the resultant impacts to the vegetative community.
• The impact of the construction of 24 homesites mentioned in the new plans should be considered under Rule 2a (2) of Part 303.
• There is no assessment or demonstration of need, either public or private, for the project, and no adequate or meaningful assessment of alternative locations to that proposed.

Gary Kohs, Mendota Lighthouse owner, and intervenor in the case with Bureau, expressed in a Feb. 13, 2003, email to Keweenaw Now his continued strong objection to the permit application.

"The DEQ has sold out and we'll show this in the contested case hearing and circuit court if necessary," Kohs writes. "They have ignored a required public hearing on the new submissions because they can't take the heat."

Kohs added he supports TNC's efforts to purchase the property, which is adjacent to the Mendota Lighthouse.

"We support The Nature Conservancy's efforts to purchase Bete Grise South, but doubt they will ever see a purchase agreement with or without a permit," Kohs adds.

Editor's Notes: *In a July 29, 2002, Briefing Addendum on Bete Grise South to IP/Lake Superior Land Co., the DEQ states: "The wetland that would be impacted by the proposed development is a poor fen type of coastal wetland. Lake Superior wetlands are distinctly different from the wetlands of the other Great Lakes due to climactic and chemical differences, and this type of coastal wetland is unique to Lake Superior. This wetland is one of two of the highest quality Lake Superior wetlands ranked by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory, and is the best example of this type of wetland known from Michigan due to its size, diversity, and hydrological intactness." **Three state statutes under Public Act 451, the 1994 Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, govern the issuance of this permit: Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, which requires a permit for certain activities impacting wetlands, including dredging or filling bottomland; constructing a structure on bottomland; and structurally interfering with the natural flow of an inland lake or stream. ("Bottomland" means the land area of an inland lake or stream that lies below the ordinary high-water mark and that may or may not be covered by water.)  Part 303, Wetlands Protection, which requires a permit for depositing or permitting the placing of fill material in a wetland; dredging, removing or permitting the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland; constructing, operating or maintaining any use or development in a wetland; and draining surface water from a wetland.  In addition, section 30311 of this statute states: "A permit (for one of the activities listed above) shall not be approved unless the department determines that the issuance of a permit is in the public interest, that the permit is necessary to realize the benefits derived from the activity, and that the activity is otherwise lawful." Part 17, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, or MEPA, which supplements the first two statutes by stating that alleged pollution of natural resources shall not be permitted if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed project also requires a federal permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which covers putting fill in wetlands adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. The wetland to be impacted by the proposed project is adjacent to Lake Superior. Note: Residents concerned about the DEQ enforcement and DNR funding for public land acquisition should note that budget discussions began in the Appropriations DNR/DEQ Sub-Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003. Rep. Rich Brown (D-Bessemer), Democratic Vice-Chair and senior member of the committee, reports they are looking into which programs will need to be scaled back in order to balance the state budget. Rep. Brown can be reached at richbrown@house.mi.gov or by phone at 517-373-0850. Residents may also write to Mr. Brown at P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909.

Visit the Keweenaw Now discussion forums to comment on this article.