Like many Montanans, I jump at every chance to spend time on the Smith River. Growing up, it was a family tradition. My dad would load up the truck, throw in a hefty supply of Snickers and canned stew, and off we’d go to explore that remote and beautiful stretch of river.
We didn’t have any of the high-tech gear we have today – often just a sheet of clear plastic draped over our flannel sleeping bags. But I have vivid memories of the towering cliffs, the spectacular rock art, abundant wildlife and the giant trout that make the Smith River such a unique and beloved place.
That’s why it’s so troubling to learn that a Canadian mining company is proposing to dig a nearly mile-long exploration tunnel, called the Black Butte Project, at the headwaters of the Smith River. This isn’t a typical exploration project. The exploration tunnel will dig into sulfide minerals, which when exposed to air and water can create sulfuric acid in a process known as acid mine drainage. It’s highly toxic to fish, a threat to public health, and it can persist for generations.
Montana is no stranger to this problem. One of the worst sites for acid mine drainage is the Zortman Landusky Mine near Malta, where vast amounts of water are polluted each year with acid and heavy metals, and scientists have determined it will continue for hundreds of years, or “in perpetuity.” Taxpayers have been stuck with cleanup costs in the tens of millions, and state officials say there’s no end in sight to that fiscal black hole.
During the permitting process, mining companies often claim that water quality won’t be harmed, or they can mitigate the problem if it does. A recent study by a Butte mining engineer shows just how consistently they’ve been wrong. The study looked at modern mines across the western U.S. to see whether the water quality predictions made during the permitting process actually matched water quality impacts once mining occurred. It found that 100 percent of the permits predicted no water quality impacts, yet 85 percent of those mines with the potential for acid mine drainage/metals leaching and near surface water resulted in water pollution.
Once acid mine drainage occurs, there’s no easy fix. At the Berkeley Pit in Butte, over a billion gallons of toxic water must be captured and treated every year, and acid mine drainage will continue in perpetuity.
Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality has completed a “quick and dirty” environmental assessment to consider the potential impacts of the Black Butte Project on the headwaters of the Smith River. The environmental assessment isn’t adequate, as illustrated by the comments from the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which call for further study. The EA is sorely lacking in fisheries data, hydrologic information, and water quality impacts analysis.
Everything about this project spells trouble. The DEQ should take a step back, and require a full environmental impact statement to evaluate the Black Butte Project. More importantly, it shouldn’t approve any project that will result in lasting pollution. The Smith River has a long history of careful public and private stewardship. Let’s be sure to continue that legacy and safeguard its waters.
Bonnie Gestring grew up in Great Falls and now lives in Missoula, where she works for the conservation group Earthworks.
Please Wait…
Which environmental group do you work for? Where do you propose that we mine the resources that we consume daily? Other countries, with less environmental oversight? You do realize the jobs will also go elsewhere. And don't complain when that new truck or smart phone you want is going up in price because of resource shortages.
Yes, the deposit is sulfide ore, as are most metallic mineral deposits. How about if we remove those sulfides from the ground so that they cannot pollute the river? You forgot to tell readers that the Black Butte deposit is very low in other toxic metals, such as mercury, selenium, antimony, etc., and that is is hosted by carbonates, which neutralize acid and of which there is so much that acid drainage is nearly impossible. The Black Butte deposit is as environmentally friendly as a mine can be: it is underground, in high-grade "pods", in a remote location and with minimal surface disturbance. It was discovered in the 1990s and has already been held up for years.
Who paid for the study by "the Butte mining engineer"? Your group? Of course you got the answer that you paid for, but please define "pollution" as noted. Does that include dropping a soda into a ditch, or does it encompass only major events? BTW, Zortman-Landusky and Butte are entirely different types of deposits, and Butte was mined in a different era without regulation, so they are hardly comparable. The EA has taken years-so much for your "quick and dirty" claim. Of course the MT FWP wants more study-they would benefit from it and give themselves something to do.
Again, at what locations in Montana will your group allow mining? Everyplace is near a stream or a watercourse of some kind. Why don't you just admit that the purpose of your group is to stop all resource development everywhere?
Our mining industries are heavily regulated by the EPA. Mistakes of the past cannot happen as they once did, and I will inform you that today's mining companies have paid, and will continue to pay for environmental clean up and restoration for past contaminations from now defunct companies. Taxpayers do not fund any clean-up or restoration work. I would encourage you to study the history of the Silver Valley in Idaho and understand how today's environmental policies and good mining practices co-exist in the worlds largest mining district. It's a beautiful relationship. Take care friend.
Do any of your fond childhood memories include watching your father go to work at the mill? Let me get to the point......what exactly do you produce at "Earthworks?" Well......I took a look at your website and found a few gems:
"Tell Mongolia: don't criminalize mining protests!"
Apparently the hard working mongols do not appreciate your meddling......wonder why?
We expose the health, environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts of mining and energy extraction through work informed by sound science. ??
How did your 'Sound science" conclude that fracking is toxic when the State of New York AND the EPA could find no harm at all?
"Fracking creates millions of gallons of wastewater that's laden with toxic and sometimes radioactive chemicals."
Really Bonnie.......where is the PROOF??
Tell us about the cultural and social impact from your eco-nazi firm. How are those kids doing? You know......the ones who's parents have part time jobs because you stopped solid, middle class jobs with your meddling.
Tell us about all the fun families have when they have to move from Montana to get a descent job.
I couldn't agree with these last two paragraphs more:
"Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality has completed a “quick and dirty” environmental assessment to consider the potential impacts of the Black Butte Project on the headwaters of the Smith River. The environmental assessment isn’t adequate, as illustrated by the comments from the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, which call for further study. The EA is sorely lacking in fisheries data, hydrologic information, and water quality impacts analysis.
Everything about this project spells trouble. The DEQ should take a step back, and require a full environmental impact statement to evaluate the Black Butte Project. More importantly, it shouldn’t approve any project that will result in lasting pollution. The Smith River has a long history of careful public and private stewardship. Let’s be sure to continue that legacy and safeguard its waters."
Of course, ironically, the current director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is Tracy Stone Manning, the former director of the Clark Fork Coalition. So what does Montana DEQ's “quick and dirty” environmental assessment say in this situation?