HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-18 Public Comment - M. Vincent - Vote No on I-186 c.�lnnnn.e►��
Y1natC- UtY1csZH.�"
10• �•l�
October 8, 2018
To: Mayor-elect Chris Mehl and the City of Bozeman
From: Matt Vincent, President of Rampart Solutions, LLC, and former Chief Executive
of Butte-Silver Bow City-County
RE: Recent Opinion letter
Dear Deputy Mayor/Mayor-elect Mehl:
I recently read the editorial you signed along with four of your mayoral
colleagues, urging readers to vote in favor of Initiative 186 (1-186) at the polls this
election season ("Montana Mayors support 1-186'). While I certainly respect every
individual's right to their own opinion, I saw the exact same editorial, verbatim,
published in another, smaller newspaper ("Voting for 1-186' in The Sidney Herald) under
the signature of Tom Reed with National Trout Unlimited. This led me to wonder if you
and the others had been asked to sign this letter, without knowing the entire background
of its content, or the context in which it was going to be presented.
The nature of my letter is to provide you — and your council members and constituents —
with "the rest of the story." I am well aware that Bozeman is a key hub to Montana's
outdoor recreation and tourism economy. Likewise, I am in full agreement that our clean
water in Montana is "too precious not to protect." As the former leader of Butte-Silver
Bow— "Basecamp Butte" as we are marketing ourselves to reflect The Mining City's
location in the Montana outdoor recreational mecca— I recognize that the pristine water
in our rivers and streams is the lifeblood of our city and state economies.
Likewise, responsible mining and the businesses that support the industry today play a
massive role in the communities in which these mines are located. Keep in mind that
both the GCC cement plant in Trident and the Imerys facility in Three Forks reside in
Gallatin County, both of which contribute revenues to the county coffers as well as
many Bozeman businesses. Even outside the mining communities, the taxes and other
inputs to our state economy are significant as well. A report completed by the University
of Montana's Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) in 2018 shows that
hard rock mining contributes $2.73 billion to Montana's economy and $200 million in
state taxes and revenues each year.
Environmentally, to say that much has changed with respect to the mining industry over
the past few decades is an understatement. Every single example of a contaminated
mine presented by the proponents of 1-186 in their campaign as a reason why the
initiative is necessary is outdated and simply non-applicable to the way things are done
and regulated today. Zortman-Landusky. Beal Mountain. Mike Horse. Ten Mile. All of
them. Coming from the nation's largest Superfund complex and home of the Berkeley
Pit, trust me when I say that I completely understand the term "perpetual treatment." I
am in full agreement that Montana needs to hold mining companies accountable for
cleanup. Again, trust me: WE DO.
The facts are that in 2018 Montana has some of the most progressive and protective
mining regulations in America if not the world. Dozens of environmental regulations,
financial safeguards and measures of corporate responsibility have been passed into
law to insure messes like Zortman-Landusky, Beal Mountain and the Berkeley Pit don't
happen again.
Unfortunately, the 1-186 proponents fail to recognize this reality in any of its messaging.
They want to mislead you into believing that we haven't learned our lessons, and that
places like Maine, Michigan and New Mexico have it better than we do. Aside from the
fact that most of us here in Montana don't want to become anything like Maine,
Michigan or New Mexico, none of this is true.
Please consider:
• The same mines that bonded for $59 million.in 1997 now have bonds that
have increased to over$300 million in 2017. Why? Because it's a
requirement that every mine's reclamation bond be reviewed in detail a
minimum of every five years to make sure the cost of cleanup and long-
term management is fully covered by the companies. Montanans WON'T
be left holding the bag if a mine goes bankrupt.
• The letter you signed states, "Currently, Montana has no way to deny a
permit to a proposed mine that will pollute our rivers with toxic waste."
This is completely untrue. In this day and age NO INDUSTRY is allowed
or permitted to pollute, period. Montana has water quality standards that
all mines must adhere to —just like every other state. In fact, Montana has
some water quality standards that are even MORE stringent than the
federal limits, making sure that our waters remain the cleanest in the
nation. None of Montana's existing hard rock mines are allowed to pollute
water currently, and none will be allowed to do so in the future.
• Lastly, Montana's economy and its communities enjoy a responsible
balance that most other places do not. Our mining industry currently
contributes over $2.7 billion/year and supports over 12,300 jobs; outdoor
recreation and tourism claims an economic output of $7.1 billion and
71,000 jobs — all of this exists today, WITHOUT P186.
To leave these important facts out of the conversation on 1-186 is irresponsible. I believe
we need to hold the proponents of 1-186 accountable for their misleading and inaccurate
messaging and VOTE "NO" on 1-186. Montanans know what's best for Montana and a
"NO" vote on 1-186 will insure that thousands of Montana families in our mining and rural
communities are able to continue mining responsibly in the 21 st century, hopefully
beyond. It will guarantee the rest of Montana residents will be able to continue to count
on the $200 million dollars in annual revenue provided to our state and local budgets.
And it will guarantee we can all continue to reap the enjoyment and benefits of the multi-
billion-dollar outdoor recreation and tourism economy, half of which is generated by our
fellow Montanans enjoying our spectacular way of life.
Thank you, Mayor-elect, Council members and citizens of Bozeman for your
consideration of these facts and positions. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have or to come back at a later date to provide more information. In conclusion
I hope you can reconsider your stated position on this initiative for the sake of
Montana's mining and rural economies and for the best interest of all our state's
residents — including Bozeman — and VOTE "NO"on 1-186.
Sincerely,
Matt Vincent
Cc: City Commission
Bozeman Daily Chronicle
' ■ TB PROTECT
DINERS AND
r rJ®13S
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 24, 2018
1-186 Will Prevent Future Mining, Hurt Montana Economy
1-186 is a misleading ballot initiative, backed by out-of-state environmental groups and activists, that
will prevent future mining activity in Montana.
Over the past three decades Montana has become a leader in ensuring mines are operated
responsibly—passing over 35 new state and federal regulations to protect our land and water
resources. Through the careful regulation of the mine permitting process and reclamation activities,
Montana has successfully struck a balance between developing our abundance of mineral resources
and protecting our waterways. If passed, 1-186 will upend that balance and our existing process for
permitting mines by setting a new, undefined, regulatory standard for any mine seeking a new permit.
The results of a review conducted by Montana Legislative Services determined the language in 1-186
contains terms that are either undefined or poorly defined. Additionally, the review revealed several
instances where the legal standards established by 1-186 conflict with those set forth in existing law. By
inserting ambiguity into our permitting process, 1-186 will open the door to more frivolous lawsuits
from environmental activist groups that want to shut down mining in Montana. As a result, 1-186 will
jeopardize Montana jobs and valuable tax revenue.
A recent report by the University of Montana's Bureau of Business & Economic Research shows that
mining currently generates $2.7 billion in economic output annually, $199.4 million in revenue to state
and local governments each year, and supports 12,304 reliable, high-wage jobs across the state.
The report also revealed that potential projects awaiting permits could produce $450 million more in
economic output, generate $35 million in additional annual revenue, and create 3,531 new jobs. These
economic opportunities will remain unrealized if 1-186 is passed and that is exactly what the activists
behind this initiative have wanted all along—to prevent future mining, regardless of the cost.
And the cost for everyday Montanans will be steep. Not only does mining revenue support local
schools, law enforcement, and emergency services, but the revenue it generates supports communities
and small businesses across our state. In fact, mining creates more than $2.7 billion each year of
economic output in Montana.
Montana's existing mine permitting laws are among the most stringent in the world and we have
already created successful balance between mining and protecting our environment.
It is clear that Montana does not need 1-186.
Vote No on 1-186 to keep Montana's strict, existing mine permitting process in place and protect the
future of our state economy.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
ow/
T® RROTEET
MANE AND
J1J55
Background on 1-186
A misleading initiative, 1-186, proposed by the Montana Environmental Information Center and
other activist groups, has already generated controversy due to a state analysis that found that
under two prior language submissions, it would trigger the shutdown of two existing mine
operations, putting families out of work. The activists just slightly altered their previous draft
language and the ballot measure has qualified for the November ballot.
In fact, 1-186 does nothing but confuse the mine permitting system with undefined terms,
creates conflict with existing code, ignores Montana's rigorous permitting system and
stringent water quality requirements, and is unnecessary. Montana Legislative Services review
of the proposed language highlighted several ambiguous and confusing sections, undefined or
ill-defined terms, and pointed out conflicting legal standards. Legislative Services was ignored
by the proponents.
The result would be legal chaos as litigation and lawyers swarm the courts to fight over these
statutory conflicts and ambiguous guidance. This confusion would empower bureaucrats in
Helena, as passage would require substantial, lengthy, and controversial rulemaking processes
that could lead to drastic interpretations.
Most troubling is that the activists were caught in their attempt to force closure of the Golden
Sunlight Mine and Montana Resources. The Governor's Office of Budget and Program Planning
determined that the language would force rejection of pending application renewals, closing
the mines, and devastating the tax base and local economy of Southwest Montana.
Today, our mining permit requirements are among the most stringent in the world. At least 35
new state and federal laws have been enacted over the past three decades that ensure that
mining operations are strictly regulated and operated responsibly.
Finally, Montana has a great balance between agriculture, industry and the natural beauty we
all love. The mining industry has created thousands of jobs over generations, keeping families
in our state. Every year, the economic contribution of mining annually delivers on average
$199.4 million in state and local revenues— resources that help lift our schools, repair our
roads, pay our teachers, and provide first responders with the tools they need to keep us safe.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
■ TO PROTECT
MINERS AND
: . JOBS
BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR INITIATIVE NO. 186 (1-186)
INITIATIVE NO. 186
A LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
1-186 requires the Department of Environmental Quality to deny a permit for any new hardrock
mines in Montana unless the reclamation plan provides clear and convincing evidence that the
mine will not require perpetual treatment of water polluted by acid mine drainage or other
contaminants. The terms "perpetual treatment," "perpetual leaching," and "contaminants"
within 1-186 are not fully defined and would require further definition from the Montana
Legislature or through Department of Environmental Quality rulemaking.
1-186.will cost $115,360 in its first fiscal year, increasing to $118,767 by fiscal year 2021. These
costs are associated with more staff for environmental review for mining permit applications
and anticipated litigation.
[] YES ON INITIATIVE 1-186
[] NOON INITIATIVE 1-186
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
Al
■ TO PROTECT
MINERS AND
JOBS
THE COMPLETE TEXT OF INITIATIVE NO. 186 (1-186)
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1.Section 82-4-336, MCA, is amended to read:
"82-4-336. Reclamation plan and specific reclamation requirements. (1)Taking into account the site-
specific conditions and circumstances, including the postmining use of the mine site, disturbed lands must be
reclaimed consistent with the requirements and standards set forth in this section.
(2)The reclamation plan must provide that reclamation activities, particularly those relating to control
of erosion,to the extent feasible, must be conducted simultaneously with the operation and in any case must be
initiated promptly after completion or abandonment of the operation on those portions of the complex that will
not be subject to further disturbance.
(3) In the absence of an order by the department providing a longer period,the plan must provide that
reclamation activities must be completed not more than 2 years after completion or abandonment of the
operation on that portion of the complex.
(4) In the absence of emergency or suddenly threatened or existing catastrophe, an operator may not
depart from an approved plan without previously obtaining from the department written approval for the
proposed change.
(5) Provision must be made to avoid accumulation of stagnant water in the development area to the
extent that it serves as a host or breeding ground for mosquitoes or other disease-bearing or noxious insect life.
(6)All final grading must be made with nonnoxious, nonflammable, noncombustible solids unless
approval has been granted by the department for a supervised sanitary fill.
(7) When mining has left an open pit exceeding 2 acres of surface area and the composition of the floor
or walls of the pit are likely to cause formation of acid,toxic, or otherwise pollutive solutions ("objectionable
effluents") on exposure to moisture,the reclamation plan must include provisions that adequately provide for:
(a) insulation of all faces from moisture or water contact by covering the faces with material or fill not
susceptible itself to generation of objectionable effluents in order to mitigate the generation of objectionable
effluents;
(b) processing of any objectionable effluents in the pit before they are allowed to flow or be pumped
out of the pit to reduce toxic or other objectionable ratios to a level considered safe to humans and the
environment by the department;
(c)drainage of any objectionable effluents to settling or treatment basins when the objectionable
effluents must be reduced to levels considered safe by the department before release from the settling basin; or
(d) absorption or evaporation of objectionable effluents in the open pit itself;and
(e) prevention of entrance into the open pit by persons or livestock lawfully upon adjacent lands by
fencing, warning signs, and other devices that may reasonably be required by the department.
(8) Provisions for vegetative cover must be required in the reclamation plan if appropriate to the future
use of the land as specified in the reclamation plan.The reestablished vegetative cover must meet county
standards for noxious weed control.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
■ TO PROTECT
MINERS AND
• JOBS
(9) (a) With regard to disturbed land other than open pits and rock faces,the reclamation plan must
provide for the reclamation of all disturbed land to comparable utility and stability as that of adjacent areas. This
standard may not be applied to require the removal of mine-related facilities that are valuable for postmining
use. If the reclamation plan provides that mine-related facilities will not be removed or that the disturbed land
associated with the facilities will not be reclaimed by the permittee,the following apply:
(i)The postmining use of the mine-related facilities must be approved by the department.
(ii) In the absence of a legitimate postmining use of mine-related facilities upon completion of other
approved mine reclamation activities,the permittee shall comply with the reclamation requirements of this part
and the reclamation plan within the time limits established in subsection (3)for mine-related facilities that had
previously been identified as valuable for postmining use.
(b)With regard to open pits and rock faces, the reclamation plan must provide sufficient measures for
reclamation to a condition:
(i)of stability structurally competent to withstand geologic and climatic conditions without significant
failure that would be a threat to public safety and the environment;
(ii)that affords some utility to humans or the environment;
(iii)that mitigates postreclamation visual contrasts between reclamation lands and adjacent lands; and
(iv)that mitigates or prevents undesirable offsite environmental impacts.
(c)The use of backfilling as a reclamation measure is neither required nor prohibited in all cases.A
department decision to require any backfill measure must be based on whether and to what extent the
backfilling is appropriate under the site-specific circumstances and conditions in order to achieve the standards
described in subsection (9)(b).
(10)The reclamation plan must provide sufficient measures to ensure public safety and to prevent the
pollution of air or water and the degradation of adjacent lands.
(11)A reclamation plan must be approved by the department if it adequately provides for the
accomplishment of the requirements and standards set forth in this section.
(12)The reclamation plan must provide for permanent landscaping and contouring to minimize the
amount of precipitation that infiltrates into disturbed areas that are to be graded, covered, or vegetated,
including but not limited to tailings impoundments and waste rock dumps.The plan must also provide measures
to prevent objectionable postmining ground water discharges.
(13)(a)The reclamation plan must contain measures sufficient to prevent the pollution of water without
the need for perpetual treatment.
(b) For purposes of this subsection (13),the term "perpetual treatment" includes activities necessary to
treat acid mine drainage or perpetual leaching of contaminants, including arsenic, mercury and lead.
(c)This subsection (13) applies except in the case of a proposed amendment to an operating permit or
reclamation plan pursuant to which a mine has been permitted on or before November 6, 2018.
14 The reclamation plan must include, if applicable,the requirements for postclosure monitoring
of a tailings storage facility agreed to by a panel pursuant to 82-4-377."
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
■ TO PROTEOT
MINERS AND
• JOBS
Section 2.Section 82-4-351, MCA, is amended to read:
"82-4-351. Reasons for denial of permit. (1)An application for a permit or an application for an
amendment to a permit may be denied for the following reasons:
(a)the plan of operation or reclamation conflicts with Title 75, chapter 2, as amended,Title 75, chapter
5, as amended,Title 75, chapter 6, as amended, or rules adopted pursuant to these laws;
(b)the reclamation plan does not provide an acceptable method for accomplishment of reclamation as
required by this part.
(2){A)Except as stated in subsection 3, a denial of a permit must be in writing, state the reasons for
denial, and be based on a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)The department shall deny an application for a permit or an application for an amendment to a
permit unless the department finds, in writing and based on clear and convincing evidence, that the reclamation
plan meets the requirements of 82-4-336(13).This subsection (3)applies except in the case of a proposed
amendment to an operating permit or reclamation plan pursuant to which a mine has been permitted on or
before November 6, 2018."
NEW SECTION. Section 3.(standard)Effective dates. [This Act] is effective upon approval by the
electorate.
NEW SECTION. Section 4.(standard)Severability. If a part of[this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are
severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of[this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications,
the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.
NEW SECTION.Section S.(standard)Applicability. [This act] applies after November 6, 2018.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
■ TO PROTECT
MINERS AND
• JOSS
Billings Gazette Editorial Opposing 1-186, published 09/23/18 in the Billings Gazette
GAZETTE OPINION
Montanadoesn't
need 1 Initiative 186 worries Randy "We're trying to educate the policies and property to guarantee I-186 won't fix any of the historic mining water
Weimer, corporate envi- public as best we can,but it's so that mines can meet their cleanup
ronmental manager for complicated that it's a challenge," responsibilities. pollution that has plagued our state.It may stop
Sibanye-Stillwater Mining Co., Weimer said. I-186 wouldn't change bond- new well-regulated mines from opening.
which operates Most mines operating in Mon- ing requirements.The initiative
minesinStiilwater tana today practice concurrent proposes to add two sections to
and Sweet Grass reclamation,cleaning up as they Montana hard-rockminingregu- ates reasonable uncertainty about testing other community values,
Y ;. counties. mine. lations.It says themine'sreclama- how the proposed law would be such asland and water quality.Yet
"We obviously "Over 50percent ofourdistur- tion plan"must contain measures applied and conflicts with the Stillwater Mining opposesI-186.
have alongiifeand bance is concurrently reclaimed," sufficient topreventthepollution standard of proof currently in the 1-186 won't fix any of the his-
will go through ex- Wehner said."We're bonded for ofwater without the need for per- law. toricmining water pollution that
pansions,"Weimer 10 years of care and maintenance petual treatment." Although I-186 states that has plagued our state.It may stop
Weimer told The Gazette after the mine closes." Montana law already says that it doesn't apply to mines al- new well-regulated mines from
recently."It could Montana didn't require mines mine reclamation plans"must ready permitted by Nov.6,2018, opening.
put at risk 1,500 todo reclamation or to post bonds provide sufficient measures to Weimer,Thompson and other in- Montana mining law in 2018 is
jobs with a$100 until after the Montana Metal ensure public safety and to pre- dustry leaders are understandably strict because of the hard lessons
million annual Mines Reclamation Act became vent the pollution of air or wa- worried.Even existing mines have of the state's unregulated past.
payroll." law in 1971.After Pegasus Gold's ter and degradation of adjacent needed andmayin thefutureneed 'Ibday's mines aren't diggingnew
The initiative bankruptcy in 1988 left taxpay- lands."The law already mandates new permits for mining the same Berkeley Pits;Montana's 21st cen-
on Nov.6 ballots ers with bills for cleanup costs, reclamation plans that control ore bodies.Montana Resources tury mines are cleaning up as they
is vague and con- the state significantly increased erosion,prevent stagnant water has four mine permits.Stillwater go and getting along with their
flicts with exist- its bonding requirements.Today, accumulation, and reduce any Mining Co.has two. neighbors.
Thompson ing statutes,said bond requirements are based on pollutants to a level considered Stillwater plans to be operat- Clean water is Montana's most
Mark'Thompson, what the Montana Department safe to humans and the environ- ing in Montana for many years to valuable resource.The DEQ and
vice president of environmental of Environmental Quality de- ment. come,Weimer said.It will seek our state laws are protecting that
affairs for Montana Resources, termines is needed to complete In one hand,I-186 is redundant new permits. resource.I-186 would inject un-
which produces copper and mo- the mine's approved reclamation because Montana law already re- Stillwater is often cited as a certainty into the future of min-
lybdenum at a Butte mine. plan.The bond amount has to be quires clean water protection model of responsible mining. ing in Montana.It's unnecessary
"Today'smhringindustryisnot comprehensivelyreviewedatleast plans before it issues or amends The Good Neighbor Agreement with the water protections already
like yesterday's," Weisner said. every five years,and at any time mining permits. So is there a that the company worked out with in law,but adds language certain
"We design,permit and operate DEQ determines that a review is downside to doubling down on concerned citizens in Stillwater to spawn litigation over any new
for(mine)closure:' needed.As of this summer,DEQ protecting our water?Well,yes, County stands as a great example mining permits.
"We learned,we evolved,things was holding about$347 million in for the future of mining in Mon- of how a large mine can provide We encourage voters to say no to
have changed,"Thompson said. cash,CDs,letters of credit,surety tana.The language of 1-186 cre- economic benefits while pro- 1-186 on their Nov.6 ballots.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop I-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer
UTO PROTECMINERS ANDJOBS
Montana AFL-CIO Editorial, Published 08/05/18 in the Montana Standard
1-186 confusi* ng,
dang"erous unneeded
ontana's working families it.What I'm sure it will accom- sands of union jobs will be at
are what make Montana plish is creating an avalanche of risk,at mines in Columbus,
the last best place.It's a lawsuits,which is good for law- Three Forks,and Townsend be-
place where you can find a good yers,but very bad for workers. cause expansion of an existing
job and a great quality of life. The Montana Legislative Ser- mine could be treated the same
Workers know there is common vices review of I-186 pointed as a new mine.Even mines like
ground between protecting dig- out a number of overly unclear the Stillwater Mine in Colum-
nified jobs with wages that sup- and confusing sections,ill-de- bus,which has conducted busi-
port a family and a fined terms,and conflicting legal ness according to the standards
clean environment standards.I-186,at a minimum, of a Good Neighbor Agreement
for all to enjoy. will require additional rulemak- that they entered into with envi-
I-186 attacks that ing and additional legislation, ronmental organizations,might
balance and sac- which will then be followed by not be able toexpand under
rifices the good litigation. I-186.
jobs by putting in Mining provides thousands of Montana already has some
place standards jobs in communities that would of the most stringent mining
AL that are undefined not otherwise offer middle class permitting requirements in
EKBLAD and probably un- employment opportunities. the world that work to ensure
attainable.That's Real jobs that pay a wage that mining operations are strictly
why the Montana can support a family,has health regulated and operated respon-
AFL-CIO is opposing I-186. insurance and a retirement. sibly.That's the way it should
We are incredibly disap- These good paying jobs exist in be.I-186 is an unnecessary law
pointed by the out-of-state spe- large part because of past and funded by out-of-state special
cial interests who have chosen current work done by organized interests who have no under-
to put I-186 on the ballot.Not workers and their unions who standing of hard rock mining
only will I-186 kill family wage have turned what could have and no real interest in Montana
jobs and prevent more from be- been low-wage,dangerous jobs workers and family wage jobs.
ing created,the ballot initiative into family-supporting,middle I-186 is a confusing initiative
is so poorly written that no one class jobs that require high skills. that will produce bad policy.The
knows exactly what it will do — 1-186 threatens all of this. Montana AFL-CIO urges work-
not even the lawyers that drafted If I-186 becomes law,thou- ers to vote no on I-186.
Paid for by the Committee to Stop 1-186 to Protect Miners and Jobs
P.O. Box 1585, Helena, Montana 59624
Bruce Vincent,Treasurer