======================================================================================
Gov. Martz Says Milltown Dam Should Go
======================================================================================

On January 21, Judy Martz went to the Capitol in Helena to present her State of the State address. The governor's speech covered predictable terrain--e.g., how the Martz administration intends to solve budget deficits, spur economic development, maintain quality education, and make health care affordable. And then, toward the end of her address, came the zinger:
"The health of our families and communities; the health of our environment and our wildlife--these must come first. That is why tonight, I am announcing that I am placing the full support of my office behind removal of the Milltown Dam at Bonner. It's simply the right thing to do."

A day after digesting and celebrating these stunning words, river advocates then read in the newspapers that EPA will indeed call for dam removal and sediment cleanup at the Milltown Reservoir Superfund site when the agency releases its proposed plan in February. (See CLEANUP PREVIEW, below.)

It's impossible to exaggerate the importance of these developments--not to mention the excitement with which they have been received. The governor's endorsement of the dam-removal cleanup scenario has been the missing link in EPA's decision-making process regarding the future of the contaminated Milltown site. In fact, during the three years the Coalition has been pushing the case for a free-flowing confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot rivers, there were moments when confrontation with the governor's office seemed inevitable. With Martz's Jan. 21 remarks, those anxieties quickly and completely evaporated. What's left is widespread, bi-partisan, science-driven agreement that a damless and sediment-free future is the best course of action--for the Clark Fork, for native trout, for riverside communities, and for local economies for the long term.

Now that the list of dam removal supporters includes Montana's governor and, at least preliminarily, EPA, it's hard to imagine what could cause the decisionmaking to veer off track. True, there's still a whole lot of "process" in front of us, including a formal public comment period and a final agency decision. These may seem like perfunctory steps at this juncture, but they're critical steps, nonetheless.

If there is a wild card at Milltown right now, it's probably ARCO. The company is obligated to pay for whatever cleanup solution EPA chooses. However, things always proceed a lot more smoothly at Superfund sites when the party responsible for footing the bill agrees to the cleanup plan in writing. Such an agreement has yet to be signed for Milltown, though confidential negotiations between EPA and ARCO remain underway.

Loose ends aside, this is a huge and historical moment for the Clark Fork watershed. It's a huge and historical moment for citizen-based advocacy. It's a huge and historical moment for the people of western Montana and the quality of life they cherish. The Milltown Dam is going to come out. The reservoir is going to be cleaned up. Relish the thought.



For news clips, check out the following:

       "Martz : Remove Milltown Dam"     Sherry Devlin, Missoulian, Jan. 22, 2003
       "Governor got it right on Milltown"     Missoulian editorial, Jan. 23, 2003
       "EPA wants Milltown Dam removed"     Sherry Devlin, Missoulian, Jan. 23, 2003

CLEANUP PREVIEW
Once Gov. Martz broke the silence on her administration's stance regarding the Milltown cleanup and weighed in emphatically and energetically in support of dam removal, EPA officials were happy to share a few tidbits about their agency's soon-to-be released cleanup proposal for the site. In addition to the key fact that EPA will call for dam removal, the agency will also propose: 1. removing about 3 million of the 6.6 million cubic yards of polluted sediments piled up in the reservoir; 2. slurrying the scooped-out sediments via pipeline to a permanent 140-acre repository on high ground south of the Clark Fork and downstream of the dam; 3. reconfiguring the Clark Fork's channel; 4. restoring the confluence of the Clark Fork and Blackfoot rivers. EPA officials will want public input on the plan. River advocates will need to give it to them, with full throttle support for dam and sediment removal leading the way. In assessing the plan's details, it'll still be important to ask the questions: Will it last? Is it the best we can do for the river? Permanence and effectiveness. Those are the core tests of a proper Superfund cleanup. Look for a more in-depth Coalition critique of the cleanup plan once EPA releases all the details.


======================================================================================
Misadventures in Mining: A Business Background of Sterling Mining Co. Principals
======================================================================================
"It is the mission of Sterling Mining Company to become one of the finest silver/copper producers in the industry while providing a safe, environmentally sound and fulfilling atmosphere for all involved. It is the philosophy of Sterling that our integrity will not, for any reason, be compromised in pursuit of this goal."
It's not often that "compromised" and "integrity" appear together in a company's mission statement. No matter how they are combined, those words tend to set off the alarm bells. That they showed up in Sterling Mining Company's mission statement is entirely fitting, however, given the penchant for bankruptcies and environmental mess-making among its top brass.
Sterling, Clark Fork List readers will remember, formed three years ago to buy ASARCO's proposed Rock Creek mining project in the lower reaches of the Clark Fork watershed. Notables from the project game plan include digging out silver and copper from beneath wilderness lakes in the Cabinet Mountains and dumping wastewater into the Clark Fork River. The Forest Service approved Sterling's project in December 2001, but then withdrew it three months later because of faulty analysis of the mine's threats to bull trout and grizzly bears.
While waiting for regulating agencies to shore up their science and re-issue decision documents on the mine, the Coalition commissioned the Washington, DC-based Corporate Research Project to take a close look at the wheelings-and-dealings of the management team behind Sterling Mining, particularly its CEO Frank Duval.
The business background, which the Coalition released to the media on Jan. 14, awakens reservoirs of unease. Of the eight mining companies Duval has been involved with, three ended up in bankruptcy court, two left behind federal Superfund sites, and two stuck taxpayers with multi-million dollar cleanup tabs.
The report, called "A Less Than Sterling Reputation," can be accessed via the Coalition's web site at www.clarkfork.org/sterlingreport.pdf. The main kernels can be found below in this reprint of the report's executive summary: ------- Sterling Mining Company's plan to dig a copper-silver mine beneath the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness Area in Montana has been widely criticized on environmental grounds. Opponents have also raised questions about the business background of the principals of Sterling Mining, alleging that they have been affiliated with numerous failed ventures and with mining projects that have created significant environmental damage and left taxpayers with huge liabilities for clean-up costs.
After conducting a thorough review of the other mining companies with which Sterling's top executives have been affiliated, the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First found legitimate reasons for public concern.
We focused on the track record of the individuals who make up what we call the Sterling Mining group-the private company's top executives and its directors. Among this group, the most significant figure is Frank D. Duval, Sterling's chairman, president and chief executive, whose company biography credits him with more than 30 years of experience in the mining industry.
We identified eight mining companies besides Sterling at which Duval has been a top executive, director or major investor. In four of these, Sterling Mining director Hobart Teneff was also involved. The eight firms are not an impressive lineup. Nearly all of them are now defunct or in limbo, and most of them have been associated with serious environmental problems. Consider the following:
--Three of the companies-Bunker Hill Mining Co. Inc., Pegasus Gold Inc. and Star Phoenix Mining Co.-ended up in bankruptcy court, though in the case of Pegasus this happened after Duval and Teneff ceased to be involved. As a result of the Pegasus bankruptcy, the taxpayers of Montana have been stuck with an estimated $30 million in clean-up costs at the Zortman/Landusky mines.
--The affiliation that Duval plays up in his Sterling Mining biography-that with Pegasus Gold-came to an end when he and Teneff were hit with charges of securities law violations (to which they consented) brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
--Duval and other principals in Star Phoenix (including his wife Janice Duval, a Sterling Mining officer and director) ended up on the losing end of lawsuits brought by the company's creditors. At one point, the Duvals had their personal possessions seized and auctioned off to satisfy a judgment against them related to Star Phoenix. The company also avoided paying back wages and severance benefits owed to its employees.
--Hanover Gold Co. Inc. abandoned the mining business rather than comply with cyanide leach processing rules put into effect in Montana. Now the publicly traded company has no revenues and is looking around for a new business.
--The main holding of Midnite Mines Inc. was a minority interest in an open-pit uranium mine near Spokane, Washington, that was put on the federal government's National Priority List of Superfund sites because of its high level of contamination. Rather than accepting their financial responsibility for cleaning up the contamination, Midnite Mines and its partner promoted a dubious plan to turn part of the site into a dumping ground for radioactive waste from nuclear weapons plants.
--Bunker Hill Mining took over a lead-zinc-silver mine in Idaho that was already on the Superfund list and later impeded the clean-up by filing for bankruptcy. The site, now owned by others, will require an estimated $360 million to complete the remediation process.
--Clayton Silver Mines Inc. took over a silver-lead mine in Idaho that had been closed because of low market prices. The company did not resume production, but it left behind a substantial accumulation of contaminated tailings. Federal and state agencies are taking care of the clean-up, with most of the cost being assumed by the U.S. EPA.
Given the varying ownership arrangements and status of the mines with which Duval has been affiliated, it is not possible to come up with a total dollar amount, but it is clear that these operations have ended up costing taxpayers a substantial sum in clean-up costs.
Apart from the eight companies linked to Duval, the report looks at the operations of Kennecott Minerals Company (KMC), where Sterling Mining director William Orchow serves as president and chief executive. KMC, a subsidiary of multinational mining giant Rio Tinto PLC, has interests in mines that produce some 89 million pounds of toxic releases per year. Since 1995 these mines have been cited for violations nearly 300 times by the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration.
To sum up, the resumés of the Sterling Mining group members contain a substantial number of failed business ventures as well as mining operations that have caused significant environmental harm or impeded the clean-up of environmental problems they inherited. Based on this past performance, we conclude that there is good reason to question the wisdom of allowing these individuals to proceed with the environmentally sensitive Rock Creek proposal.


===============================
Finally, a Recovery Proposal for Bull Trout
===============================
In November, five years after it listed the bull trout as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, the US Fish & Wildlife Service issued a proposal outlining its plan for recovering the native fish species and designating so-called "critical habitat" for the fish. The proposal comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Friends of the Wild Swan demanding that the Service comply with the ESA, which says that critical habitat and a recovery plan must be developed within a year of listing a species. So what is critical habitat, exactly? Basically, it's an inventory of the minimum habitat necessary to recover a species and get it off the endangered species list. This habitat inventory is closely linked to the recovery plan, which is a slate of actions the Service believes will be necessary to restore and de-list the species. The ESA requires both the critical habitat designation and the recovery plan to be based on the best available science. Though long overdue, this recovery plan looks pretty good. A great deal of study has been done on bull trout in Montana in the last decade, and the Service's proposal reflects that. The Service has included not only obvious bull trout strongholds like the North Fork of the Blackfoot and Rock Creek as critical habitat, but also key upper Clark Fork tributaries like Warm Springs Creek and Flint Creek, where bull trout populations are barely hanging on but could be restored. Better yet, the proposal emphasizes the importance of re-establishing migration corridors in mainstem rivers by providing fish passage at dams, or in the case of Milltown, considering outright removal. We do have a few quibbles with the proposal, however. For example, the Service has declined to designate important streams within Plum Creek's so-called "habitat conservation plan" as critical habitat, which looks like an arbitrary favor to the company. Similarly, we would have preferred that the Service designate entire watersheds as critical habitat, rather than just the area within the bankfull discharge of the streams. Still, since it's clear that the designation will limit off-stream activities that might degrade habitat within the stream--such as clearcuts--this approach is probably adequate. Check in with Matt Clifford (406/542-0539 or mailto:matt@clarkfork.org) if you'd like more information on the topic.


===============================
Coalition Book a Top Seller
===============================

Okay, so it's not the New York Times Best Seller list, but there's still pleasure to be taken in the fact that the Coalition's "A River We Carry With Us" was fourth in non-fiction sales at Missoula's Fact & Fiction bookstore in 2002. So if you're looking for an engrossing read while you wait for, oh say, EPA's Milltown cleanup proposal to come out, this is it. The book is a compilation of essays by many of Montana's finest writer (including William Kittredge, David James Duncan, Rick Bass, Debra Earling, Richard Manning, Sandra Alcosser), so it will not disappoint stylistically. And with a two-century perspective on life in the Clark Fork watershed, this book is a page-turner. Copies are available in soft cover ($22.95) or a limited leather-bound ($125). Visit http://www.clarkfork.org/book.html for a view of the book's table of contents. To order, contact Susan Scallia via mailto:susan@clarkfork.org or 406/542-0539.