Document Actions
Golden Sunlight Mine
The Golden Sunlight Mine (a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian mining giant Placer Dome) is one of the largest cyanide-leach open-pit gold mines in the world, which began mining the south flank of Bull Mountain near Whitehall, Montana, in 1975.
(Click on images to enlarge.
All images taken on a Lighthawk flight.)
[February 2008]
After waiting more than five years, MEIC is finally asking district court judge Thomas Honzel to enforce his 2002 judgement ordering full reclamation of the pit at the Golden Sunlight mine (GSM). The request was prompted by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s continued refusal to implement Judge Honzel’s ruling. The most recent violation by DEQ was its approval in July 2007 of a new reclamation plan for the mine that does not require any backfilling of the mine’s pit.
[In October 2007 the Montana Supreme Court dismissed the mining company’s appeal of a district court decision ordering the State and the company to “immediately implement” the partial pit backfill alternative at the mine. The Court said that any court review of DEQ’s reclamation decision has to be done under the law as it had been rewritten.]
In December 2007 MEIC filed a petition with the district court, asking Judge Honzel to do a number of things. First, MEIC asked him to issue an order staying implementation of the new reclamation plan. DEQ never agreed with Honzel’s 2002 order and spent the last five years producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) attempting to rationalize its position. DEQ’s pre-determined outcome in the latest environmental review doesn’t change the fact that Montana’s constitution requires reclamation of the mine pit.
Second, MEIC asked Judge Honzel to again order DEQ to require the partial pit backfill alternative. This is the reclamation alternative that DEQ previously found to be environmentally preferable, but eliminated from consideration because of its cost to the mining company. It is the alternative that Judge Honzel decided in 2002 was mandated by the Montana constitution. Along with finally insisting that this reclamation plan be implemented, MEIC also asked Judge Honzel to increase GSM’s reclamation bond to cover the costs of this alternative.
Third, because of DEQ’s repeated refusal to abide by Judge Honzel’s past rulings, MEIC asked the judge to suspend GSM’s operating permit if DEQ fails to abide by his rulings. Finally, MEIC asked Judge Honzel to find DEQ director Richard Opper in contempt of court. Even though this case has spanned four governors and as many department directors, Opper signed the record of decision last August in violation of Judge Honzel’s past order, allowing GSM to operate without a legal reclamation plan.
In response to these requests, DEQ and GSM point to the 2007 EIS (Read DEQ's Record of Decision.). The EIS, they say, finally and unequivocally proved that the mine’s waste rock is acid-generating. To put acid-generating rock back in the pit would raise the risk of water contamination at the mine, they say. Further, with the pit partially filled, they also say it would be harder to capture and treat the contaminated water. They argue that the risk is too great, and therefore the pit should not be reclaimed.
There are a number of problems with their argument. First and foremost, regardless of which reclamation plan is finally adopted, the water at GSM is and will be contaminated. If the pit is partially filled, there will be water contamination. If the pit is left unreclaimed, there will be contamination. That said, the Montana Constitution requires that “all lands disturbed by the taking of natural resources shall be reclaimed.” [Article IX, Section 2] And DEQ itself determined that the partial pit backfill alternative is environmentally preferable. The only difference between the two choices, as far as GSM is concerned, is the cost.
All of MEIC’s recent requests significantly raise the stakes in the ongoing effort to compel reclamation at GSM, but enough should be enough. In three separate decisions over the course of more than a decade, Judge Honzel has ruled reclamation plans and reclamation laws unconstitutional. In fact, he expressly rejected the cost of reclamation as a consideration in choosing a reclamation plan. Every time Judge Honzel has ruled, DEQ or GSM has tried to re-write the reclamation plans and laws to undermine his decisions. MEIC hopes that Judge Honzel is as tired of these machinations as MEIC is and is ready to take action to compel DEQ and GSM to abide by his rulings.