Written by Lauren Dunn
Tintina Resources Inc. (TRI) is a resource-based company planning to develop an underground mine one mile from Sheep Creek. Sheep Creek is a fourth ordered tributary that is 17 miles from the Smith River. The proposed project is on private ranch land of 12,000 acres in Meagher County. Surrounding communities include Helena, Great Falls, and White Sulphur Springs (8). TRI has been in the exploring process of the Black Butte Copper Project (BBCP) since 2010. During this exploration process, TRI has claimed that they have maintained an “open door” policy with interested stakeholders to help ensure the project supports local communities in all aspects, including economically, socially, and environmentally (4).
Initial drilling in this area began over thirty years ago. Jerry Zieg, a Montana resident and current vice president of TRI’s management team, stated in an interview, his interactions with surrounding communities that regarded the copper mine began about “thirty-five years ago” (Zieg). This is when the BBCP first started developing, although under a different name. “The property contains sediment-hosted zones of massive sulfide mineralization originally explored by Cominco American Inc. and BHP/Utah International during the 1980’s and early 1990’s” (6) Cominco was the company Zieg initially started working with to develop a mining project, and has come back to the area to further develop the project with TRI (8).
Mining Process
The proposed project is an underground mine that would have a lower, middle and upper mining zone. The permit to begin drilling was issued to TRI under Exploration License No. 00710 by the state of Montana in September of 2010 (5,8). Over 30,000 meters of drilling has already been completed since 2011 (8). TRI submitted another application amending the Exploration License in September of 2012. This amendment requested to “gain underground access to the mineral deposit,” and conduct an exploration decline to “obtain up to 10,000-ton bulk sample for the metallurgical testing” (5). Submitting the amended request resulted in a lawsuit filed against Montana Department of Environmental Quality and TRI, which has slowed the project from moving forward. Recently TRI started a feasibility study. Once this study is completed TRI will have a better idea of project outcomes, but there are still unknowns with the project that are being worked out.
One of the larger environmental impacts TRI is working to solve regards mine tailings, otherwise known as waste-rock. Copper mining projects contribute large volumes of waste and TRI is still developing plans that deal with the project’s waste, which is part of their feasibility statement (10, 11). The feasibility statement is part of a larger process for TRI to move forward. TRI plans to resubmit an amended proposal and go through the process of completing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Zieg expects the EIS statement to take one to two years before it is completed, as TRI has to clear every bit of the project cleared by the agency (11). After completing an EIS and acquiring a mining permit, TRI estimates mine construction to start in 2018, and for the mining to take place in 2020 (4).
According to Zieg, TRI is continuing to investigate innovative mining technologies and learn from past failed clean-up-projects. After the extraction process, underground cavities from drilling will expose sulfide deposits between bedrock layers. According to a geochemist working with the management team, when sulfide oxidizes, sulfur ions become liberated and cause the sulfur to turn into sulfuric acid. One proposed solution processes 50 percent of the tailings to minerals by making an “environmentally friendly” proc-fill-paste that will then fill the cavities, be topped off with soil and wetted with water to protect the watershed from leaching acid (11).
TRI’s Position:
All of the personnel of TRI have worked in the mining industries and on resource extraction projects prior to the BBCP. TRI’s webpage displays that several of the executive management team, board of directors, and consultants have worked together in the past before joining on TRI. The management team and board of directors consists of a geoscientist, two mining engineers, two geologists, a chief financial officer, investment brokers, and a chairman of the board. Most of the management team reports their work experience is between 15 and 30 years, and show a high level of expertise in their field (8).
Their social connections, indicated by TRI’s webpage, infer that several of their personnel have a history of working for NovaGold, another business based in resource exploration and extraction (1, 8). Given that NovaGold and TRI don’t share links to their past projects on their websites makes tracking down past project history hard. Given the lack of transparency, one might wonder if past projects have been environmentally and socially successful or not.
Adversely, TRI is transparent with their financial reports, as there are investors who buy into company shares. The project has the potential to generate a quantifiable amount money. According to TRI’s website a portion of this money will be going back into the community to help with schools, hospitals and infrastructure issues. By visiting TRI’s website, one can view the capital structure for the project and detailed financial reports that date back to fiscal year of 2010. (8). Although the financial reports are very transparent, reading them are not straightforward for someone who lacks financial knowledge, and understanding the structure of capital investment can be challenging. Providing difficult economic information doesn’t necessarily help build trust.
During a phone interview with Nancy Schlepp, TRI’s Public Relations Director, she stated that the company puts energy not only in economic factors of the company, but places equal energy into community involvement and environmental stewardship. As part of the community involvement process, a community advisory group formed. TRI has held a number of open houses to help educate interested members of the public. They stated that they have been in dialogue with eight of the outfitters in the area, and continue to work on improving relations with recreationalists, environmental groups, and outfitters (2).
On TRI’s website you can find a “Code of Ethics.” This code provides a framework to encourage the company’s personnel to make well-rounded decisions throughout the process of the project. One code stated that a to “conduct the Company’s exploration, development and mining operations using environmental best practices with a goal of being environmentally responsible corporate citizen” throughout the project. This type of language demonstrates TRI is thinking forward and might have good intentions with this project (8).
Zieg, being from White Sulphur Springs, shows he deeply part of the issue. He shares a connection to this place and wants to see fisheries and recreational opportunities continue. He has had interactions with communities for about 35 years, and his motive is to boost the economy in White Sulphur Springs, as they are one of the “poorest counties” in the state (11). TRI estimates 200 jobs for 11-14 years will come from the project (4). The Hard Rock Mining Act will require TRI to pay taxes that goes back into the community. He described this as “pre-paying taxes” for years after the project that will help the community update the cities outdated infrastructure (11).
This project is on a privately owned ranch. Zieg reported TRI maintains regular relations with the owner of the ranch, where the project is taking place, and has a private contract with the private landowner. Through this contract TRI is committed to restore the ranch back to a working condition. Zeig acknowledges water is a huge concern that needs to be addressed and doesn’t want to impact that watershed in any way (11).
Common Ground
Overall, Zieg and Schlepp feel that there is strong local and regional support for the project (2, 11). With two 30-day public comment periods, TRI has been able to address a lot of the publics’ concern (3). According to Schlepp, TRI has held open houses, hosted tours, been involved with the community, their members are on three different community advisory boards, and continue to be dialogue with the eight outfitting companies. They feel that their “open door policy” has been working considering they have been able to address concerns about the project (2).
Conflict
Zieg doesn’t see any conflict surrounding the project despite the lawsuit filed against the company. He thought the lawsuit might have created controversy for other people, but TRI did not experience direct conflict. Although, Zieg did admit the lawsuit slowed down the project through legal means. He sees the biggest challenge as opposition driven by emotion and people not taking the time to understand (11). According to Schlepp, educating the public has become a large part of the project. Some of the specific user groups TRI has focused their energy on are hunting and fishing groups, outfitters and Trout Unlimited (2). Schlepp and Zieg agreed that in addressing people's concerns there is no conflict, yet its been their biggest challenge (2, 11).
Suggestions for TRI
● Keep working to improve social relations with people whose quality of life and livelihoods depend on the Smith River by making the process more transparent
● Utilize collaborative techniques with interest groups to avoid future lawsuits.
● Keep the entire process documented so that mistakes can be learned from.
● Learn from other past mining projects’ environmental successes and failures
● Use technological solutions with caution
● Start working with restoration ecologists to further develop a restoration plan and make this aspect transparent.
● Remember that we are all in this together.
Bibliography
1. Nova Gold Resources Inc. “NOVAGOLD.” 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 November
2014.
2. Schlepp, Nancey. Telephone Interview. 11 Nov. 2014
3. Tintina Resources Inc. “Black Butte Copper Aquifer Test EA Comment
Responses.” 2014.
4. Tintina Resources Inc. “Black Butte Copper Project.” 9 Sept. 2014. TAU
Corporate Presentation.
5. Tintina Resources Inc. Letter to Tintina Mailing List. 14 Jan. 2014. Decision on
Application for Amendment of Tintina Alaska Exploration License No. 00710, Black Butte Copper Project.
6. Tintina Resources Inc. “Management Discussion and Analysis.” June 2014.
7. Tintina Resources Inc. “Project Checklist Environmental Assessment.” 2014.
8. Tintina Resources Inc. “Tintina Resources.” 2014. Web. 2 November 2014
9. Tintina Resources Inc. “Tintina Reports New Indicated & Inferred
Copper-Cobalt-Silver Resources at the Black Butte Copper Property (formerly “Sheep Creek”), Montana--Company Expands Scope of PEA.” 30 Nov. 2011. News Release.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Copper Mining and Production
Waste.” 30 Aug. 2012. Web. 15 November 2014.
11. Zieg, Jerry. Telephone Interview. 11 Nov. 2014
The Smith River, its Recreation Plan and stakeholders around the state.
By Rob Shropshire
The Smith River State Park and River Corridor is an iconic place to visit in south central Montana. The lawsuit filed by Earthworks would stop Tintina Alaska Exploration Inc. from completing an exploratory decline which would allow them to survey the Johnny Lee copper deposit. The corridor is a scenic, history rich recreation resource that provides outdoor opportunities for Montanan’s and out of state adventure seekers alike.
Smith River Recreation
The corridor is popular enough that it is the only river in the state of Montana where user numbers are limited and managed through a lottery style permitting system. The river sees around 4,000 visitors a year[1], which is a number set by the State Park Managers to keep “a high quality, safe experience for the public and protects natural and cultural resources in the river corridor”[2] through a permitting system. In 2013 there were 6,662 applicants for permits to raft the river. Of those 6,662[3] applicants only 614 parties actually received the opportunity to raft this beautiful river. The parties were polled about their experiences and roughly 76% of the floaters rated their trip as excellent. The corridor generates about 75,000 a year in permitting fees for FWP and also brings a lot of revenue into the area from out of state.
Activities available in this area are very diverse, relying on the diversity of flora and fauna heavily. The activity the area is known for is rafting but there are boating, canoeing, fly fishing, camping, kayaking, swimming and wildlife viewing opportunities available as well. The state managers are anticipating a “growing demand for river recreational opportunities” across the state so management is a very important issue for the area.
Stakeholders
These are the stakeholders who are concerned with the implications of mining operations taking place in and around the Smith River Watershed. These groups of land managers have a stake in the river and therefore were all included in drafting of the 2009 Smith River recreation corridor management plan. If mining operations were to be allowed, these groups would all share in any negative effects resulting from the mineral extraction operations. State, federal, and local agencies make up a portion of the properties that border the river; however a whopping 80% of the land bordering the river is privately owned. The following are the groups that are part of the management of the Smith River Corridor and an explanation of how they have a stake in the area.
➢ Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks (FWP) owns 797[4] acres of the corridor and leases another 41 acres from private landowners. Montana FWP controls the only put in and take out points on the river but not a whole lot else. FWP does however have jurisdiction over all lands in the corridor as well as the fish, wildlife and recreation opportunities existing here. This agency may not have the majority of the land in this corridor but they are one of the primary stakeholders which would be affected by the mining operations. FWP is responsible for the direct management of the human traffic on the river as well as managing the wildlife and their ecosystems. The mining operations have the potential to destroy or severely destabilize the ecosystems of the area.
➢ United States Forest Service (USFS) is the largest public landowner along the corridor. The Lewis and Clark National Forest and the Helena National Forest manage and maintain the land in accordance with a standing agreement with FWP. They manage the timber, wildlife and grazing permits which are on their lands at a given time. If any unforeseen consequences result from the mine hunters, fishermen and ranchers would be affected by them. The forest service is a national agency which could be affected by this mine which is a process which, thus far has only been subjected to instate scrutiny.
➢ The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) own scattered portions on which timber harvest as well as mineral exploration and development are open. They are a minor stakeholder in the area. Despite being a minor stakeholder the BLM has a history of allowing public land to be leased for mineral extraction or timber harvests. This tendency could be problematic for the Smith River Corridor if extraction operations are conducted in the river’s watershed.
➢ The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) owns land that the river runs through. Some of these lands are leased to cattlemen for grazing purposes to provide income for the State Education Trust. This yeilds yet another intested party in the future of the Smith River. The schools in Montana use this river as an educational resource as well a minor source of funding for the school system.
➢ Meagher and Cascade Counties both have stakes in the use the Smith River sees because they are responsible for the roadways and other infrastructure which are required to access the river. Their respective sheriff’s offices are responsible for search and rescue as well as emergency responses on the river. This responsibility requires a working relationship with the FWP Wardens and River Rangers during any such operations.
➢ Private Property owners make up the last group of landholders in the area . Private property makes up 80% of the land the river runs through[5]. This large amount of private holdings with a public river corridor running through it requires FWP to come to agreements and work with the landowners. These property owners rely upon the river to be a viable source of clean water to support their land holdings. The private property owners in the area use the land for a number of reasons but the most important use is agriculture. These people have a stake in the area because it is where they live. The recreation industry from the river also provides these private property owners a significant amount of income.
Suggestions
The Montana FWP does a fairly good job of taking and addressing the citizens opinions. On their website the submit comments section is a way to question an issue or get more information from the agency about a concern for something falling within the FWP jurisdiction. Suggestions for improving the public involvement process would be to include more than just the heads of the organizations representing the stakeholders in the decision making process. This small pool of decision makers might not have an accurate representation of the situation onsite. The state and national groups interested in this area are wellrepresented, the rafting organizations are also well represented in this area. The people that live there are not engaged as well as they could be by the groups and committees charged with making the decisions about whether or not a mine can happen in their backyard or not. In my interview with Leah Rokita, a seasonally employed raft guide on the Smith and Missouri Rivers, she stated “not many people living in the area really know that there is a proposed mine in the area.”[6] Overall the managers of the Smith River have been engaging the groups who are economically tied to the area, not the groups which are emotionally or spatially connected to the area. My charge to FWP would be to gauge the attitudes of the visitors about the possibility of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality allowing a mine to operate upstream of this vibrant and scenic river corridor.
Bibliography
FWP Commission. Montana State Parks Biennial Smith River Rule: Fees and Rules for Smith River State Park and River Corridor. Helena, Montana: Montana State Parks, 2012.
Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Smith River State Park and River Corridor; Recreation Management Plan. Helena, Montana: Montana State Parks, 2009.
stateparks.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=39162
Leah Rokita (Summer River Guide on the Smith River), in an interview conducted by the author, October 2014.
Mass, Collin. Smith River State Park and River Corridor: Visitor Use and Statistics Monitoring Report 2013.
[1] Mass, Collin. Smith River State Park and River Corridor: Visitor Use and Statistics Monitoring Report 2013.
[2] Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Smith River State Park and River Corridor; Recreation Management Plan. Helena, Montana: Montana State Parks, 2009.
[3] Mass, Collin. Smith River State Park and River Corridor: Visitor Use and Statistics Monitoring Report 2013.
[4] Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Smith River State Park and River Corridor; Recreation Management Plan. Helena, Montana: Montana State Parks, 2009.
[5] Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks. Smith River State Park and River Corridor; Recreation Management Plan. Helena, Montana: Montana State Parks, 2009.
[6] Leah Rokita (Summer River Guide on the Smith River), in an interview conducted by the author, October 2014. This interview was conducted over the phone.
Nick Holmes
Fisheries
The
Smith River is a nationally renowned location for fishing. Recreational fishing
is a huge part of tourism and income for the surrounding counties. Montana
Fish, Wildlife and Parks have been managing the Smith River since 1974, as a
wild trout fishery (About the Smith, 2014).
The
original population of fish in the Smith River included westslope cutthroat
trout, arctic grayling, and mountain whitefish. Since then, the predominant
fish in the area fish in the area now consist of brook, cutthroat, brown, and
rainbow trout. Cutthroat trout now only have six species of genetically pure
fish in the Smith River drainage. This is less than two percent of what they
once were (About the Smith, 2014). Although species diversity has decreased
since 1974, around 741 miles of the Smith River drainage habitat are able to
support these species.
The
number in trout population tends to vary throughout seasons and the degree of
those seasons. A dry summer with high temperatures and low flows in creates
large amounts of mortality rates in the Smith River. The winter season can also
create unfavorable conditions for trout in the area and can lead to high
mortality rates. Brown and rainbow trout dominate the large lower elevation
tributaries of the Smith River. Whereas smaller tributaries in upper elevation
areas are dominated by brook trout that have been introduced by the FWP (About
the Smith, 2014). The Smith River has become a popular fishing destination
because of the dense population of diverse fish species it holds:
In
fall 2011, FWP estimated that densities of rainbow and brown trout were about
250 for each species in the upper section of the permitted portion of the
river, just downstream of Camp Baker. The historic average based on 33 years of
data is 506 rainbows and 312 brown trout per miles. Further downstream,
densities of both species have generally been lower (About the Smith, 2014).
Sheep
Creek, where Tintina’s proposed copper mine would be, is a major tributary for
the Smith River. It is one of the main sources of precious water for the Smith
River. Of all tributaries on the Smith River it is the key spawning tributary.
Drainage of Sheep Creek accounts for over half of the tributaries spawning for
rainbow trout in the Smith River. The full-scale mine would be located on some
public property and partially on private property adjacent to Sheep Creek and
on the South Fork of Sheep Creek. This is on the upper part of the Smith River
drainage. The drainage at Sheep Creek is accountable for more than half of the
tributary spawning for rainbow trout and is an important source of water for
the Smith River during low in-stream flows.
(About the Smith, 2014)
In
an interview with Joe Sowerby, an outfitter for Smith River Fly Fishing
Expeditions, he expressed the importance for his company and other outfitters
of the Smith River. He explained how the spawning areas for trout at Sheep
Creek provide the Smith River for adequate populations making guiding a
pleasurable and rewarding experience for anyone involved. Any sort of negative
effect on the Sheep Creek area would relay a negative effect for fishing on the
Smith River.
Despite
decreasing flows from other drainages there is an average of more than 14,200
angler-days from 1982 to 2009. “Montana FWP economists estimate the Smith River
fishery annually generates at least $1.7 million to the economy. This does not
include the significant amount of use by non-angling floaters and other
recreationists,” (About the Smith, 2014). This income is just one of the ways
that Sheep Creek helps support the local and statewide economy. The proposed
copper mine could change all of this.
In
my interview with Joe he also mentioned the impacts potential mining could
have. He thought that even though the mining could generate jobs and revenue
for the public, the environmental effects the mining could have on the area
still outweighed the good that could come. The negative impacts could lead to
no fish in the rivers and without fish in the rivers no one would want to come
to the Smith River to fish. If no one wants to fish the Smith River then people
like Joe would be out of a job.
Problem
Tintina’s proposed
mining puts not only Sheep Creek but also the Smith River’s fisheries in potential
danger. As discussed in a previous blog post the proposed mine would be at the
head of the Sheep Creek tributary. The
proposed project would be a large underground mine primarily in use for
copper. Tintina’s mine project area would consist of an area for their waste
material and waste rock, otherwise known as tailings, a crushing facility, a
possible water treatment plant, and areas for discharge of waste materials.
This would be on the purposed
12,000-acre mining site. (What’s the Deal.., 2014).
The main concern
about the proposed mine on the fisheries are concerns of water quality and
quantity. There is the potential of major dewatering of the Sheep Creek
tributary. The location of the mine is critical because of the heavy use of
water associated with running the mine. Sheep Creek provides so much inflow
that it can almost double the flow of the Smith River (Erickson, 2014). “The
company will need to pump huge quantities of groundwater to keep its
underground works dry, potentially reducing flows to connected surface flows
and wetlands,” (What’s the Deal…, 2014).
Pumping
groundwater from the mining activities could potentially have very severe
consequences. This includes the lowering of the water table, which could create
a “cone of depression”. This cone would extend to the Sheep Creek alluvium to
neighboring stream flows (Save Our Smith, 2014). Consequently, Sheep Creek and the Smith River suffer most years
from low out and in-stream flows. This puts a burden on downstream water users.
It prevents fisheries from reaching their full potential.
Massive
pumping of groundwater for keeping underground mines dry can deplete connected
surface flows in streams . . . if you think instream flow rights that FWP has
on the Blackfoot, Big Hole, or Smith Rivers will protect these multi-million
dollar recreational gems, think again. SB 347 allows mining to trump FWP’s
fishery-based water rights, (Erickson, 2014).
During
the mining process sulfide-bearing rocks are disturbed and react with oxygen
and water causing chemical reactions. These rocks are ground into smaller
pieces called tailings and therefore have a more exposed surface and increase
with mining over what would naturally occur. This, among other things, affects
the pH levels. The Smith River is partially dependant on these pH levels along
with alkalinity and acidity of the river (Erickson, 2014). The Smith River is a
limestone-based stream and is productive because limestone-based streams tend
to be more alkaline and have a high level of calcium carbonates.
Bacteria
resides in water with low pH. This bacteria will continue to increase acidity
and drop the pH lower. Sulfuric acid is toxic to most living things and highly
corrosive. A pH of 7.0 is neutral. When a river decreases to a pH of 5.0
mayflies, trout, and caddisflies die. As the stream becomes more and more
acidic the stream becomes closer to being completely sterile meaning nothing
can survive in it (Erickson, 2014). Along with this, heavy metals tend to
dissolve into water. These metals that come along with mining, like copper, can
become washed downstream as they dissolve and get into the food chain. As this
continues to happen it will accumulate at too high of a level (Erickson 2014).
The buildup of sulfuric acid from these mines can be very expensive and
difficult to stop.
Public/Stakeholders
There
are many negative implications and possible negative outcomes that the mine
could create such as the decline with water quality and quantity. These have a
negative effect on fisheries of the Smith River and Sheep Creek tributary. This
negative effect on the fisheries has a huge social impact dealing with the
fishing industry, use of the Smith River, and other recreational activities.
There is a giant industry behind fishing on the Smith River involving
outfitters, guides, anglers, and the public who also buy permits to float and
fish the river.
Along
with guiding, this industry creates jobs for the local community. Tourism
brings in revenue from instate, out of state, and the required purchase of a
fishing license or permit. Some of the public has become so outraged that they
have come up with the slogan “Save Our Smith” and created bumper stickers,
sign-ons from outfitters and fisherman, and are creating support from any
citizen who loves the river. To stop further growth of the mining operation
there is a petition that anyone is able to sign. In the interview with Joe
Sowerby he encouraged the public to go out and voice their opinions by signing
the petitions and support the Save Our Smith website. He believes that this is
the best website on the subject that he has seen so far.
Montana
Trout Unlimited and Lewis and Clark Expeditions have created website and blogs
with an outcry of their opinions on how the mine will have a negative impact on
the area and their livelihood. Mike Geary of Lewis and Clark Expeditions
stated: “To kill a trout stream isn’t a crime; it is a sin. to put the entire
Smith River in jeopardy isn’t a risk I would like to take. The mine will affect
all downstream recreational and agricultural users.” A large portion of the public
and many different stakeholders do not support the proposed mine based on
expectations not being met by past mining operations. They fear that Tintina’s
operation could be another tragedy with harsh environmental and social
consequences. a majority of Montanans do not want to see their environment
destroyed. They view the land and water as a treasure, not just the copper
within it.
References:
"About
the Smith." Save Montanas Smith
River. Montana Trout Unlimited, n.d. Web. 19
Nov. 2014.
Byron,
Eve. "Copper Could Bring Jobs, Money to White Sulphur, but at What
Cost?"Helena
Independent Record. Independent Record, 31 Mar. 2013. Web. 19
Nov. 2014
Erickson,
Jeff. "Copper Mining Threatens Montana's Smith River - Fly
Fisherman."Fly
Fisherman
Copper Mining Threatens Montanas Smith River Comments. Fly
Fisherman, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 19
Nov. 2014.
Grigg,
Sarah. "Lawsuit Filed Against Mining Exploration on Montana's Smith
River." Field
& Stream. Field & Stream, 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
Lundquist,
Laura. "Lawsuit Challenges DEQ Approval of Mine near Smith
River."Bozeman
Daily Chronicle. Bozeman Daily Chronicle, 17 Mar. 2014. Web.
19 Nov. 2014.
"Save
Our Smith." Save Our Smith.
N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.
"What's
the Deal with the Tintina Resources and Its Proposed Black Butte
Mine?"Flathead
Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited. Montana Trout Unlimited, 25
Interview
Sowerby, Joe. phone interview. 3, Nov, 2014.
Images
All images are from google image
search
"Google." Google. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.
Brennen Cain
Lawsuits for a modern mine
Introduction
Tintina Resources has made sure that every aspect of their exploratory mining in the Sheep Creek area of central Montana was totally in cadence with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Tintina was granted the proper permitting, by the DEQ, to do exploratory mining and assess the amount of potential resources underneath an 18 square mile of privately leased land. In early 2013, Tintina applied for an amendment to their initial permit. This amendment would allow them to dig an 18 ft. by 18 ft. ‘decline’ to provide them with further resource data. In June of 2013, The DEQ reviewed the amendment later that year and continued with hydrological impact studies, and acidity assessments to predict the amount of environmental harm the decline would have to the area. After releasing a draft of an Environmental Assessment (EA), the DEQ concluded that Tintina Resources was approved for the decline. Tracy Stone-Manning of the DEQ backed this exploration; “this exploration will provide the DEQ and the public with hard data and information that can be used if and when we make a final decision on a permit for a mine.”
The Montana Environmental Information Center and EarthWorks filed a law suite against the approval of the amendment to Tintina’s mining permit. The coalition hired Jenny Harbine from the environmental law firm, EarthJustice. The both Tintina and the DEQ have decided to withdraw from the lawsuit, while Earthworks and MEIC have also dropped the lawsuit.
Litigation
Montana Environmental Information Center, an environmental justice non-profit, took issue with the DEQ’s Environmental Assessment. Derf Johnson of MEIC stated, “An 18ft by 18ft decline is not exploration, that’s mining, and that’s not the permit they had”. The Earthworks and MEIC took issue with a number of, what they saw as, oversights with the permit and the DEQ’s investigation. The projected size and scale of the amended exploration was not legally qualified in the initial Environmental Assessment made by the DEQ. Johnson claimed a full fledged Environmental Impact Statement by the DEQ was needed. The plaintiffs also cited concerns with the amount of water needed for this scale of an exploration project. Water quality and quantity associated with mining were large concerns for Johnson and everyone at MEIC. Johnson went on to say that this concern was not fully taken into consideration in the Environmental Assessment.
The plaintiff’s main argument condemning the EA and Tintina’s exploration composed of three main claims. Jenny Harbine sited a violation with: the Montana Environmental Protection Act, an act ensuring strict care of environmental use; The Hard Rock Mining Act, placing strict boundaries on a mining projects’ use of resources; and finally the Montana Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA has historically been a powerful force in environmental legal action.
The Plaintiffs would’ve continued with litigation, however, Tintina withdrew the amendment. The suit was dropped earlier this year. “The decline was not defensible” Johnson claimed. Though, he did indicate that they would try other means of investigation of the area in question. Johnson also said that MEIC and Earthworks would push forward on litigation should the DEQ come forward with an Environmental Impact Statement.
Engagement and Alternate Planning
The public comments period, opened by the DEQ, brought a significant amount of concern for the proposed mine. One of the more prominent commentators was Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP). FWP has waters rights in Smith River and Sheep Creek, the Smith’s largest tributary and closest to the mine. FWP expressed concerns about a large-scale mine harming the fisheries in the area as well as the overall ecology of the watershed. Other prominent commentators were outfitting companies. Lewis and Clark Expeditions was perhaps the most boisterous of the outfitters. The plaintiffs were able to use FWP’s comments as leverage to further their claim that Tintina had violated the Clean Water Act. The public comment period was an opportunity for both sides of the issue to talk with people who were directly related to the project. Due to a provision in MEPA, public comment was not only useful, but also mandatory.
Tintina and the DEQ withdrew from litigation after the public comment period. Nancy Schlepp of Tintina Resources provided information on the choice to withdraw. The initial exploration permit already allowed for small scale drilling and excavation of resources. The amendment to the permit, submitted to the DEQ by Tintina in 2013, would expand the nature of the exploration to include the decline. The DEQ’s draft Environmental Assessment produced after the amendment request was thorough and concluded that Tintina was within legal bounds to continue with the decline exploration, according to Schlepp. Tintina produced baseline studies to the DEQ “We knew that we could’ve won the suit” Schlepp expressed in a phone interview. According to Tintina, these studies included plans to use of the most up to date mining technology. Tintina did studies having to do with the fisheries in the area, which was a major concern of the FWP in their public comments. Tintina also conducted wetland and wildlife impact studies. These studies eventually were used as the DEQ’s main platform for the approval of the permit amendment. After reviewing the public comments the Tintina and the DEQ withdrew, Tintina shifted its focuses to educating the public, addressing public concerns, and doing further evaluations of the area.
Working within their own terms
Since the lawsuit was dropped Tintina received “backing from new investors” that would like to see the project going soon. These new investors likely will provide support to complete further studies to supply the DEQ with material to complete a full-fledged Environmental Impact Statement. Tintina has found ways that are within the legal realm of their existing permit to obtain the information that would’ve been retrieved from the Decline. Schlepp expressed her personal and Tintina’s deep respect for Montana law and the natural heritage of the area. Schlepp said in no way would the further exploration or any activity by Tintina in they are effect the water quality or greater ecosystem. Tintina made “active steps”, according to Schlepp to address and talk about the comments expressed received during the public comment period. Tintina reached out with FWP, to address water rights issues. They also met with Trout Unlimited, Outfitters, and community members. Tintina claims that they have a strict “open door” policy, willing to show anyone the project and project plans. Tintina has assured concerned stakeholders that they will absolutely seal off their water supply, thus eliminating the possibility of tailings entering into the water table, or tributaries of the Smith River. Their hope is to create a new standard, a new model for what a mine can be. “If all goes well, no one will ever know that we were there,” Schlepp stated at the end of the interview.
The land of Environmental Law
MEIC and Earthworks feel differently in about the mine. According to Jenny Harbine, an environmental lawyer representing Earthworks and MEIC, there are times when a mine is necessary and others when its “completely inappropriate and dangerous,” which was the angle the plaintiffs approached the lawsuit. Jenny Harbine backed the litigation with three major claims. The first claim cited the Clean Water Act, which states: “unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waste.” The Plaintiffs and Harbine were highly skeptical of Tintina’s claim that polluted water would not make it into the water table. Harbine: “We’ve never seen a hard-rock mine without acid draining, and we don’t want to take the chance with this mine.” Harbine also cited MEPA as well as the Hard Rock Mining Act (HRMA).
After the suit was filed in late 2013, Tintina withdrew their amendment application not wanting to go through with litigation. The plaintiffs also dropped the case, however, both Tintina and MEIC were confident they could’ve won the case. Tintina is in the process of doing further data collecting through exploratory mining that is within their permit allowance. They have not yet applied for a full mining permit with the DEQ. Harbine, MEIC, and Earthworks will be ready for when the mining application does hit the DEQ’s desk. While Harbine didn’t specify on exact future proceedings for the Black Butte Copper mine, she did mention that they were not going to wait for a mining permit to be filed.
Conclusion
The Black Butte Copper mine sits in a strange situation. Tintina can go forward with any mining and extraction that does not stray out of the language inside of their mining permit. MEIC and Earthworks have for now stopped an 18 X 18ft mine being drilled, however they cannot move forward with any legal action, as Tintina is lawfully mining. Both sides have made efforts to come to a resolution. Tintina has met with interest groups, outfitters, held informational meetings to help educate the public on their plans, they are even willing to drive anyone from their office to the project area to give an informational tour. Through vigilant mining and employing the most modern science, Tintina’s goal with the project is extract copper with as little environmental impact as possible. Harbine, MEIC, and Earthworks would like to see the project stop in its tracks, pack up, and move out. They have done large amounts of organizing around the issue. MEIC and Earthworks created Save our Smith, a campaign dedicated to informing Montanans of the dangers of the Black Butte Copper Mine, while giving them the tools to take action against it. While both groups have addressed key components of the collaborative process, (Transparency, representative, inclusive) they have failed to meet with each other to discuss the issue. Tintina allegedly reached out to MEIC and Earthworks to meet and discuss the project, though no meeting ever took place. Its business as usual for both sides of the issue until MEIC and Earthworks can find an environmental breach in Tintina’s practices, or until a full scale mining permit is granted to Tintina by the DEQ.
_files/image002.gif){kind=link}