motion-entry-consent-decree-draft.docx

1039-00003 · Torchlight Mining Corp · Consent Decree/Drafting & Negotiation

motion-entry-consent-decree-draft.docx DOCUMENT Antitrust

18 / 75 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffs,

and

STATE OF NEVADA and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,

Co-Plaintiffs,

TORCHLIGHT MINING CORP.; TORCHLIGHT MINING (U.S.) INC.; TORCHLIGHT SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC.; RIDGECREST MINE HOLDINGS, LLC; and BONANZA CREEK MINING, LLC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 9:24-cv-00087-DWM

Hon. Donald W. Molloy Senior U.S. District Judge (by designation)

UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), together with co-plaintiffs the State of Montana, the State of Nevada, and the State of West Virginia (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and the Court's inherent authority to approve consent decrees, to enter the Consent Decree ("Decree") lodged with the Court on February 19, 2025. The Decree resolves alleged violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., at four facilities operated or formerly operated by Defendants Torchlight Mining Corp. and its United States subsidiaries across the States of Montana, Nevada, and West Virginia.

The four facilities at issue in this action are: (1) the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine, located near Drummond, Granite County, Montana; (2) the Gallatin Chemical Works, located in Belgrade, Gallatin County, Montana; (3) the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine, located in Lander County, Nevada; and (4) the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant, located in Institute, Kanawha County, West Virginia. These facilities have been the source of significant environmental contamination, including acid mine drainage containing elevated concentrations of dissolved copper, molybdenum, and selenium; carbon disulfide contamination of groundwater; cyanide and mercury releases into surface water; and heavy-metal and dense non-aqueous phase liquid ("DNAPL") contamination in soils and fractured bedrock aquifers.

The Consent Decree was lodged with this Court on February 19, 2025, and a thirty-day public comment period was opened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d), the Department of Justice's policy on consent decrees in environmental cases, and the applicable notice provisions of CERCLA § 122(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(2). Notice of the proposed Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2025, and the public comment period closed on March 21, 2025. The United States has reviewed all comments received during the comment period and addresses each substantive comment herein.

The Consent Decree represents a comprehensive resolution of the United States' claims against Defendants. In summary, the Decree provides for:

• Remediation Obligations: A total of $343.5 million in nominal remediation costs ($245.1 million net present value ("NPV") at a 3% discount rate) across all four sites, with remediation timelines spanning up to thirty years and including enforceable milestones, performance standards, and completion criteria;

• Civil Penalties: $31.5 million in civil penalties, payable in four equal quarterly installments of $7.875 million each, calculated in accordance with EPA's civil penalty policies under the CWA and RCRA;

• Reimbursement of EPA Past Costs: $18.1 million in full reimbursement of EPA's past response costs, comprising $14.3 million for removal actions at the Ridgecrest site (2021–2023) and $3.8 million for emergency response at the Kanawha Bend site (2020);

• Supplemental Environmental Projects: $12.0 million for three supplemental environmental projects ("SEPs") with a direct nexus to the violations and providing meaningful benefits to communities impacted by Defendants' operations;

• Independent Environmental Monitor: Appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as an independent, court-approved environmental monitor with quarterly compliance-audit authority and annual public reporting obligations, at an estimated cost of $4.8 million over five years;

• Financial Assurance: $245.0 million in financial assurance instruments, comprising a $165.0 million surety bond issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. and an $80.0 million remediation trust fund established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A.

The grand total estimated obligation under the Consent Decree is approximately $409.9 million in nominal terms (approximately $311.5 million on an NPV/cash-equivalent basis).

For the reasons set forth below, the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, adequate, and consistent with the objectives of the CWA, RCRA, CERCLA, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq. The United States respectfully requests that this Court enter the Consent Decree.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. The Complaint and Answer

On January 18, 2024, the United States, acting on behalf of EPA, filed the Complaint in this action on behalf of itself and the State of Montana, alleging violations of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, arising from Defendants' operations at the four identified facilities. ECF No. 1. The Complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, on referral from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The States of Nevada and West Virginia were joined as co-plaintiffs in the action, reflecting the multi-state nature of the environmental harm caused by Defendants' operations and the interest of those states in remediation of contaminated sites within their borders.

On March 5, 2024, Defendants Torchlight Mining Corp., Torchlight Mining (U.S.) Inc., Torchlight Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Ridgecrest Mine Holdings, LLC, and Bonanza Creek Mining, LLC filed their Answer, generally denying the substantive allegations in the Complaint while admitting certain jurisdictional and corporate-structure facts. ECF No. 14. Defendants did not assert any affirmative defenses under CERCLA § 107(b), and their Answer reserved all rights to raise additional defenses should the litigation proceed to trial.

B. Tolling Agreement and Mediation

Following the filing of the Answer, the parties engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the possibility of a negotiated resolution. On April 22, 2024, the parties entered into a Tolling Agreement tolling all applicable statutes of limitations through December 31, 2025, to permit settlement negotiations without prejudice to either side's claims or defenses. ECF No. 22. The Tolling Agreement reflected the parties' shared recognition that the complexity and multi-site nature of the case made early settlement discussions appropriate, and that the significant environmental harm at issue warranted an expedited path toward remediation.

On May 15, 2024, this Court entered an Order referring the matter to mediation before Magistrate Judge Clara Finnegan. ECF No. 28. Magistrate Judge Finnegan conducted a series of mediation sessions between May and July 2024. The mediation sessions were productive and facilitated candid exchanges between the parties regarding the factual and legal bases for the United States' claims, the scope and cost of necessary remediation, and the appropriate level of civil penalties. On July 30, 2024, following the conclusion of the mediation sessions, the parties reached an agreement in principle on the framework for a consent decree. ECF No. 41 (Joint Status Report advising the Court of the agreement in principle).

C. Consent Decree Negotiation

Following the agreement in principle, the parties engaged in an intensive period of detailed negotiations to translate the framework agreement into a fully operative consent decree. On November 8, 2024, the United States circulated the first full draft consent decree to Defendants and to the co-plaintiff States. The draft addressed all elements of the proposed resolution, including site-specific remediation obligations, schedules and milestones, civil penalties, past-cost reimbursement, supplemental environmental projects, financial assurance requirements, the appointment and role of an independent environmental monitor, stipulated penalties, force majeure, dispute resolution, and termination provisions.

On December 16, 2024, Defendants submitted their redlined revisions to the draft consent decree, proposing modifications to, among other things, certain remediation milestones, the scope of the independent monitor's authority, the amount of financial assurance, and the structure of the stipulated penalty provisions.

On January 14, 2025, the United States provided its counter-redline, accepting certain of Defendants' proposed modifications, rejecting others, and offering alternative formulations where the parties' initial positions diverged significantly.

On January 24, 2025, Defendants submitted a second redline, addressing the United States' counter-proposals and narrowing the remaining areas of disagreement to a manageable set of open issues principally concerning the Ridgecrest remediation timeline, the total amount of financial assurance, and the escalation rates for stipulated penalties.

On February 3, 2025, the parties convened an in-person negotiation session at the offices of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. The session was attended by representatives of the Department of Justice, EPA, the Attorneys General of Montana, Nevada, and West Virginia, and counsel for Defendants. Over the course of a full day of intensive negotiation, the parties resolved all remaining open issues and finalized the substantially agreed consent decree text.

On February 19, 2025, the Consent Decree was lodged with this Court for the thirty-day public comment period required by 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d) and the Department of Justice's consent decree policy. ECF No. 53.

D. Public Comment Period

A notice of the proposed Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register on or about February 19, 2025, inviting public comment. See 90 Fed. Reg. _ (Feb. 19, 2025). The notice described the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, identified the four affected facilities, summarized the principal relief provisions, and provided instructions for submitting comments to the Department of Justice. The thirty-day public comment period closed on March 21, 2025.

During the comment period, the United States received fourteen comments from individuals, community organizations, environmental advocacy groups, and other interested parties. The United States has reviewed all comments received and addresses the substantive comments in Section VII below. On the whole, the comments reflected community interest in ensuring that the remediation obligations are comprehensive and timely, that the civil penalties are sufficient to deter future violations, that the supplemental environmental projects provide genuine benefits to affected communities, and that the financial assurance mechanisms are robust. As discussed below, the Consent Decree fully addresses these concerns.

E. Prior Related Administrative Proceedings

The enforcement action giving rise to this litigation did not arise in a vacuum; it followed a series of prior administrative proceedings through which EPA sought to address environmental conditions at the affected facilities.

On September 15, 2022, EPA and Torchlight Mining Corp. executed an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") under CERCLA § 106, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, for the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine site (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2022-0039). The AOC required Torchlight to perform certain interim removal actions to address immediate threats from acid mine drainage, including the installation of a temporary water treatment system and the repair of a compromised diversion channel. While Torchlight undertook certain work under the AOC, EPA determined that the response actions taken were insufficient to address the full scope of contamination at the site, and the AOC's terms were ultimately subsumed by the broader enforcement action filed in this Court.

The Gallatin Chemical Works has operated under RCRA Permit No. MTD098712456, issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") under EPA authorization. The facility has been subject to RCRA corrective action requirements, and three Solid Waste Management Units ("SWMUs") have been identified at the site. Despite the permit requirements, Defendants failed to perform the corrective action necessary to address carbon disulfide contamination in groundwater and other contamination associated with the SWMUs.

Similarly, the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant has operated under RCRA Permit No. WVD048823915, issued by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") under EPA authorization. The facility has been subject to RCRA corrective action requirements related to a former surface impoundment and other areas of contamination. Defendants failed to close the former surface impoundment as required by the permit and applicable RCRA regulations, and engaged in unpermitted treatment of listed hazardous wastes K062 and D002.

On September 12, 2023, EPA issued a comprehensive Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Torchlight Mining Corp. covering all four facilities at issue in this litigation. The NOV detailed the alleged violations of the CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA at each site and served as the precursor to the Department of Justice's referral and the filing of the Complaint on January 18, 2024.

III. BACKGROUND

A. The Defendants

Torchlight Mining Corp. ("TMC") is a corporation organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act, dual-listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "TRC." TMC is headquartered at 1800 Bayfield Tower, 401 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y4, Canada, with United States headquarters at 750 Copper Ridge Boulevard, Suite 200, Helena, Montana 59601. TMC is a diversified mining and specialty chemicals company that operates fourteen mines and six chemical processing facilities across North America, South America, and Australia. TMC's mining operations focus principally on copper, molybdenum, and gold extraction. TMC employs approximately 11,400 individuals worldwide, of whom approximately 4,200 are located in the United States. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, TMC reported consolidated revenue of approximately C$4.82 billion (approximately US$3.56 billion at prevailing exchange rates). TMC is the ultimate parent company of each of the other Defendants in this action.

Torchlight Mining (U.S.) Inc. ("TM(US)") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, wholly owned by TMC. TM(US) serves as the direct operator of TMC's mining operations in the United States. TM(US) holds Employer Identification Number 83-2047156. TM(US) is the direct parent of each of the remaining Defendants.

Torchlight Specialty Chemicals, Inc. ("TSC") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, wholly owned by TM(US). TSC operates the Gallatin Chemical Works in Belgrade, Montana, and the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant in Institute, West Virginia. TSC holds Employer Identification Number 47-3819204.

Ridgecrest Mine Holdings, LLC ("RMH") is a Montana limited liability company (Montana Secretary of State ID E1042738), wholly owned by TM(US). RMH holds the real property and mineral rights associated with the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine in Granite County, Montana.

Bonanza Creek Mining, LLC ("BCM") is a Nevada limited liability company (Nevada Secretary of State Entity No. E0518294731), wholly owned by TM(US). BCM holds the real property, mineral rights, and water rights associated with the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine in Lander County, Nevada.

B. The Four Facilities

1. Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine. The Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine is located at 14200 Ridgecrest Mine Road, Drummond, Granite County, Montana 59832. The mine occupies approximately 3,200 acres of active mine footprint within a total controlled property of approximately 8,700 acres. The site is situated in the Flint Creek Valley, approximately twelve miles south of the Town of Drummond.

The Ridgecrest Mine is an open-pit copper-molybdenum mine that has been operational since 1978. Active mining operations ceased on December 31, 2019, and the site is currently in a closure and reclamation phase. The mine has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List ("NPL") under CERCLA, and has been the subject of an Administrative Order on Consent executed between EPA and TMC on September 15, 2022 (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2022-0039).

The principal environmental concerns at the Ridgecrest site arise from acid mine drainage ("AMD") generated by the exposure of sulfide-bearing waste rock and pit walls to air and water. AMD at the site contains dissolved copper at average concentrations of 47 mg/L, vastly exceeding the State of Montana's chronic aquatic life standard of 0.0087 mg/L—a factor of more than 5,400 times the applicable standard. The AMD also contains elevated concentrations of molybdenum (average 1.2 mg/L), selenium (average 0.082 mg/L), and sulfate (average 3,400 mg/L). In addition, the site includes a 425-acre tailings impoundment with documented seepage to Flint Creek, a high-quality trout stream and tributary of the Clark Fork River.

The alleged violations at the Ridgecrest site include: (a) unpermitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, including discharges of AMD to Flint Creek and its tributaries; (b) mismanagement of hazardous waste generated by the solvent extraction/electrowinning ("SX/EW") circuit in violation of RCRA § 3004, 42 U.S.C. § 6924; and (c) liability for $14.3 million in EPA removal action costs incurred between 2021 and 2023 under CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.

2. Gallatin Chemical Works. The Gallatin Chemical Works is located at 8800 Industrial Park Lane, Belgrade, Gallatin County, Montana 59714. The facility occupies approximately 145 acres and is situated within the Belgrade industrial corridor, approximately seven miles west of the City of Bozeman.

The Gallatin Chemical Works is a specialty chemical manufacturing facility that produces flotation reagents, including sodium xanthate and dithiophosphate collectors, used in the mineral processing industry. The facility has been operational since 1993 and remains an active production facility. The facility operates under RCRA Permit No. MTD098712456 and is subject to corrective action requirements.

The principal environmental concerns at the Gallatin site involve contamination of groundwater with carbon disulfide ("CS₂"), a volatile and toxic solvent used in the xanthate manufacturing process. Groundwater monitoring data indicates CS₂ concentrations as high as 890 µg/L in on-site monitoring wells, approximately eighty-nine times the federal maximum contaminant level ("MCL") of 10 µg/L. Additional contaminants include xanthate decomposition products and volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"), including toluene and xylene, in subsurface soils. Three Solid Waste Management Units ("SWMUs") have been identified at the facility, each requiring corrective action.

The alleged violations at the Gallatin site include: (a) unpermitted storage of hazardous waste and failure to perform required corrective action in violation of RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and (b) fourteen exceedances of Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("MPDES") effluent limitations for CS₂ and total suspended solids ("TSS") between January 2021 and June 2024, in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311.

3. Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The Bonanza Creek Gold Mine is located off County Road 447, Mile Marker 12, in Lander County, Nevada 89820. The mine occupies approximately 5,600 acres of active mine footprint within a total controlled property of approximately 12,400 acres, situated in the high desert terrain of central Nevada, approximately thirty miles south of the Town of Battle Mountain.

The Bonanza Creek Mine is an open-pit, heap-leach gold mine that has been operational since 2001 and remains an active mining operation. The heap-leach process involves the application of a dilute cyanide solution to crushed ore stacked on lined pads; the pregnant solution containing dissolved gold is collected and processed for gold recovery.

The principal environmental concerns at the Bonanza Creek site arise from releases of process solution containing weak acid dissociable ("WAD") cyanide and mercury from the heap-leach pad. Three documented releases of process solution occurred through a torn liner in the heap-leach pad, resulting in unpermitted discharges to an ephemeral tributary of the Reese River on March 17, 2022; August 9, 2022; and January 22, 2023. Water quality samples collected following these releases documented WAD cyanide concentrations of 0.62 mg/L (against a discharge limit of 0.022 mg/L) and mercury concentrations averaging 12.4 µg/L (against a water quality criterion of 0.77 µg/L). In addition, selenium has been detected at elevated levels in the developing pit lake. Seventeen documented avian mortalities occurred at the facility's solution ponds between 2021 and 2023, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The alleged violations at the Bonanza Creek site include: (a) three unpermitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; (b) management of spent heap-leach ore as hazardous waste in violation of RCRA § 3004, 42 U.S.C. § 6924; and (c) seventeen documented avian mortalities at solution ponds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.

4. Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant is located at 2200 Chemical Valley Road, Institute, Kanawha County, West Virginia 25112. The facility occupies approximately 78 acres in the Kanawha River Valley, within the area historically known as "Chemical Valley," approximately nine miles northwest of Charleston, West Virginia.

The Kanawha Bend facility manufactures leaching agents and performs sulfuric acid regeneration for use in mining and industrial processes. The facility has been operational since 1985 and remains active. The facility operates under RCRA Permit No. WVD048823915 and is subject to corrective action requirements.

The principal environmental concerns at the Kanawha Bend site involve contamination from a former waste lagoon and surface impoundment, as well as from ongoing operations. Sulfuric acid residuals have resulted in soil pH values as low as 1.8 in the vicinity of the former waste lagoon. Heavy metals, including lead (maximum concentration 4,200 mg/kg) and arsenic (maximum concentration 890 mg/kg), have been detected in soils near the former waste lagoon. In addition, a dense non-aqueous phase liquid ("DNAPL") plume consisting of chlorinated solvents has been identified in the fractured bedrock aquifer beneath the facility, posing a significant long-term threat to groundwater quality.

The alleged violations at the Kanawha Bend site include: (a) failure to close a former surface impoundment and unpermitted treatment of listed hazardous wastes K062 and D002 in violation of RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and (b) liability for $3.8 million in EPA emergency response costs incurred following a sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River on June 14, 2020, under CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.

IV. TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE

The Consent Decree contains detailed provisions governing remediation, civil penalties, cost reimbursement, supplemental environmental projects, independent monitoring, financial assurance, stipulated penalties, force majeure, dispute resolution, and termination. The principal terms are summarized below.

A. Remedial Action Requirements

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to perform comprehensive remedial actions at each of the four affected facilities. The total nominal cost of the remediation obligations is $343.5 million (NPV at a 3% discount rate: $245.1 million). The remediation obligations are site-specific and reflect the unique contaminant profiles, hydrogeologic conditions, and technical challenges at each facility. The remediation timelines span up to thirty years and include enforceable milestones, performance standards tied to applicable regulatory criteria, and completion criteria that must be satisfied before remediation obligations may be terminated.

Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine. The remediation obligations at the Ridgecrest site represent the largest component of the Decree, with a negotiated remediation cost of $198.6 million over thirty years (NPV at 3%: $134.9 million). The remediation program encompasses: (i) the design, construction, and long-term operation of an acid mine drainage treatment system capable of treating AMD to meet Montana surface water quality standards before discharge; (ii) stabilization of the 425-acre tailings impoundment, including regrading, capping, and installation of a groundwater interception system to prevent continued seepage to Flint Creek; and (iii) Flint Creek water quality restoration, including in-stream and riparian restoration measures. Defendants are required to submit a Remedial Action Work Plan to EPA for review and approval no later than December 14, 2025. Remedy construction is required to commence no later than June 14, 2027. The remediation obligation runs through June 14, 2055.

Gallatin Chemical Works. The remediation obligations at the Gallatin site total $42.8 million over fifteen years (NPV at 3%: $34.1 million). The remediation program includes: (i) investigation and corrective action at the three identified SWMUs; (ii) design, installation, and operation of a groundwater treatment system to address CS₂ contamination and achieve MCL compliance at the facility boundary; and (iii) removal or treatment in place of VOC-contaminated subsurface soils. Defendants are required to submit a Corrective Measures Study ("CMS") to EPA for review and approval no later than June 14, 2026.

Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The remediation obligations at the Bonanza Creek site total $63.2 million over twenty years (NPV at 3%: $47.1 million). The remediation program includes: (i) repair and replacement of the compromised heap-leach pad liner; (ii) installation of additional containment and leak detection systems; (iii) design, installation, and operation of a cyanide and mercury treatment system for process solution prior to any permitted discharge; and (iv) installation of wildlife deterrent systems, including solution-pond netting and hazing devices, to prevent future avian mortalities. The liner repair program is required to commence no later than June 14, 2026.

Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The remediation obligations at the Kanawha Bend site total $38.9 million over twenty years (NPV at 3%: $29.0 million). The remediation program includes: (i) interim stabilization measures for the former surface impoundment and surrounding areas; (ii) investigation and treatment of the DNAPL plume in the fractured bedrock aquifer; and (iii) final closure of the former surface impoundment in accordance with RCRA closure requirements. The interim stabilization measures are required to be completed no later than December 14, 2026.

B. Civil Penalties

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to pay a total civil penalty of $31.5 million. The penalty is allocated among the four sites as follows:

The civil penalty is payable in four equal quarterly installments of $7,875,000 each. The first installment is due within thirty days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree (i.e., on or about July 14, 2025, based on the projected Effective Date of June 14, 2025). Subsequent installments are due at twelve, twenty-four, and thirty-six months after entry of the Decree, respectively. Interest on any unpaid balance accrues at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

C. Reimbursement of EPA Past Costs

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to reimburse EPA a total of $18.1 million in past response costs. This amount comprises $14.3 million for removal actions conducted by EPA at the Ridgecrest site between 2021 and 2023, and $3.8 million for the emergency response conducted by EPA at the Kanawha Bend site following the June 14, 2020 sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River. Past-cost reimbursement is payable in full within sixty days of the Effective Date.

D. Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to fund and implement three supplemental environmental projects totaling $12.0 million. Each SEP has a direct nexus to the violations alleged in this action and provides meaningful environmental or public health benefits to communities impacted by Defendants' operations. The three SEPs are:

Flint Creek Watershed Restoration Project (Montana) — $5.5 million. This project will fund stream-bank stabilization, riparian replanting, and fish-passage improvements along approximately twelve miles of Flint Creek downstream of the Ridgecrest Mine. The project directly addresses degradation of the Flint Creek watershed caused by decades of acid mine drainage and tailings seepage from the Ridgecrest facility. Defendants are required to complete the project within five years of the Effective Date, subject to enforceable milestones and reporting requirements.

Battle Mountain Community Drinking Water Improvement Project (Nevada) — $3.5 million. This project will fund the upgrade of the municipal water treatment facility in the Town of Battle Mountain, Lander County, Nevada, the community nearest to the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The upgrade will include installation of advanced filtration and treatment technology to address naturally occurring arsenic and other contaminants that have been exacerbated by regional mining activity. Defendants are required to complete the project within three years of the Effective Date.

Institute Community Air Quality Monitoring Network (West Virginia) — $3.0 million. This project will fund the installation and ten-year operation and maintenance of six ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Institute and South Charleston areas of Kanawha County, West Virginia, in the vicinity of the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The monitoring network will track concentrations of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM₂.₅), volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants of concern to the local community. Monitoring data will be made available to the public in real time through a web-based platform. Defendants are required to complete installation within eighteen months of the Effective Date and to fund operations for ten years.

E. Independent Environmental Monitor

The Consent Decree provides for the appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as the court-approved independent third-party environmental auditor and monitor. Verdant Analytics will be led by Dr. Kamal Osei, Senior Managing Director, who brings more than twenty-five years of experience in environmental compliance auditing, remediation oversight, and federal enforcement matters.

The independent monitor's duties include: (i) conducting quarterly compliance audits at each of the four facilities, covering all aspects of Defendants' obligations under the Decree; (ii) reviewing Defendants' submissions to EPA, including work plans, progress reports, and completion certifications; (iii) preparing and submitting annual public reports summarizing the status of compliance with the Decree, including an assessment of whether remediation milestones are being met and whether performance standards are being achieved; and (iv) reporting to EPA and the Court any material instances of noncompliance or any conditions that may pose a threat to public health or the environment.

The estimated cost of the independent monitor over the initial five-year term is $4.8 million (approximately $960,000 per year). The monitor's costs are borne by Defendants.

F. Financial Assurance

The Consent Decree requires Defendants to establish and maintain financial assurance totaling $245.0 million to ensure that funds are available to complete the required remediation in the event that Defendants are unable or unwilling to perform their obligations.

The financial assurance package consists of two components:

Surety Bond. A surety bond in the amount of $165.0 million, issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. (Bond No. ISA-ENV-2025-08934), with EPA as obligee. The annual premium on the bond is 1.85%, or approximately $3.0525 million per year. The bond is subject to annual renewal and adjustment to reflect changes in the estimated cost to complete the remaining remediation obligations.

Remediation Trust Fund. A remediation trust fund in the amount of $80.0 million, established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A. (Trust Agreement No. LTC-REM-2025-1177), with David Henshaw as Trust Officer. The trust fund requires an initial deposit of $80.0 million and is subject to annual adjustment based on the estimated cost to complete the remaining remediation. The trust agreement designates EPA as the sole beneficiary and provides that trust funds may be disbursed only upon EPA authorization for approved remedial activities.

In addition, an escrow agreement for stipulated penalty deposits has been established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A. Under this agreement, any stipulated penalties assessed under the Decree are to be deposited into the escrow account pending resolution of any disputes.

The deadline for Defendants to establish the remediation trust fund and post all financial assurance instruments is September 12, 2025.

G. Stipulated Penalties

The Consent Decree contains stipulated penalty provisions designed to provide a meaningful economic incentive for timely compliance with all Decree obligations. The stipulated penalties are assessed on a per-day, per-violation basis at the following escalating rates:

Stipulated penalties accrue automatically upon a failure to meet any Decree obligation and are payable to the United States upon demand. Pending resolution of any dispute regarding the assessment of stipulated penalties, the assessed amounts are to be deposited into the escrow account established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A.

H. Force Majeure

The Consent Decree includes a standard EPA force-majeure provision. Under this provision, Defendants may assert a force-majeure defense to the assessment of stipulated penalties if a failure to meet a Decree obligation is caused by circumstances entirely beyond Defendants' control that could not have been foreseen or prevented by the exercise of due diligence. Force-majeure events include, but are not limited to, acts of God, war, strikes, and regulatory delays not caused by Defendants. Defendants are required to provide written notice to EPA within fifteen days of the occurrence of any event that Defendants contend constitutes a force-majeure event, and the notice must include a description of the event, its anticipated duration, the Decree obligations affected, and the steps Defendants are taking to mitigate the effects of the event. Disputes regarding force-majeure claims are resolved through the Decree's dispute-resolution mechanism.

I. Dispute Resolution

The Consent Decree establishes a three-tier dispute-resolution mechanism for resolving disagreements between the parties regarding the interpretation or implementation of the Decree:

Tier 1: Informal Negotiation. The disputing parties shall first attempt to resolve any dispute through informal negotiation for a period of thirty days following written notice of the dispute.

Tier 2: Formal EPA Decision. If informal negotiation does not resolve the dispute within thirty days, EPA shall issue a formal written decision within thirty days of the expiration of the informal negotiation period. EPA's decision shall set forth the factual and legal bases for the determination and shall specify the action, if any, that Defendants are required to take.

Tier 3: Judicial Review. If Defendants object to EPA's formal decision, Defendants may petition this Court for judicial review within thirty days of EPA's decision. The standard of review applicable to the Court's consideration of EPA's decision shall be determined by the nature of the dispute, with technical or scientific determinations reviewed under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard and legal determinations reviewed de novo.

J. Effective Date and Termination

The Effective Date of the Consent Decree is thirty days after entry of the Decree by this Court, as specified in Section IV of the Decree. Based on the United States' target entry date of May 15, 2025, the projected Effective Date is June 14, 2025.

Termination of the Decree occurs on a site-by-site basis, upon certification of completion by EPA and the independent monitor. Termination for any individual site may not occur until at least five years after the completion of all remedial construction at the relevant site and only upon a demonstration that all performance standards have been met and maintained for the requisite period.

K. Aggregate Financial Summary

The following table summarizes the aggregate financial obligations of Defendants under the Consent Decree:

On an NPV/cash-equivalent basis, the grand total estimated obligation is approximately $311.5 million.

V. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE

A. General Standard

A consent decree in a federal environmental enforcement action should be entered by the court if the proposed decree is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and is "consistent with the objectives of the governing statutes." United States v. Cannons Eng'g Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 85 (1st Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal., 50 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1435 (6th Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit, which governs this action, has consistently applied this standard. See Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748; United States v. Comunidades Unidas Contra la Contaminación, 204 F.3d 275, 280 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Court's role in reviewing a proposed consent decree is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties or to determine whether the decree is the "best possible" resolution of the dispute. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 84. Rather, the Court's inquiry is whether the proposed decree "falls within the range of reasonableness." Id. at 85; see also Citizens for a Better Env't v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[T]he court is not to reject a decree merely because it does not provide a remedy the court might consider ideal.").

The Supreme Court has recognized that "[c]onsent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms," and that "[t]he parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation." United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681 (1971). Courts therefore afford significant respect to the parties' negotiated resolution, particularly where the decree reflects the informed judgment of the United States in a matter of public interest. See United States v. Kestrel Partners LLC, 56 F.3d 1448, 1460–61 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

B. Factors Considered

In evaluating a proposed consent decree, courts generally consider three categories of factors:

Procedural Fairness. The decree must have been reached through good-faith, arm's-length negotiation among the parties, with all parties represented by competent counsel and afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the negotiation process. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 86; United States v. Charles George Trucking, Inc., 34 F.3d 1081, 1084 (1st Cir. 1994). Courts examine whether the negotiation process was conducted at arm's length, whether all parties had access to relevant information, and whether the decree was the product of genuine compromise rather than capitulation by one side. See Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748.

Substantive Fairness and Reasonableness. The relief provided by the decree must be adequate in light of the claims asserted, the strength of the evidence, the risks of continued litigation, and the overall circumstances of the case. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 87. Courts consider whether the remedial obligations are comprehensive and protective of public health and the environment, whether the civil penalties serve the deterrent and punitive purposes of the applicable statutes, and whether the decree otherwise adequately addresses the alleged violations. Id.; United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411–12 (2d Cir. 1985).

Consistency with the Public Interest and Statutory Objectives. The decree must be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the applicable environmental statutes. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 89. In environmental enforcement cases, courts give "significant deference" to the United States' assessment that the proposed decree adequately addresses the violations and protects public health and the environment. Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748–49. This deference reflects the recognition that the Environmental Protection Agency possesses specialized expertise in assessing environmental risks and crafting appropriate remedial measures. Id. The views of interested parties, including public commenters, are also considered as part of the public-interest analysis. See 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d).

VI. THE CONSENT DECREE IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND CONSISTENT WITH STATUTORY OBJECTIVES

Applying the legal standards set forth above, the proposed Consent Decree satisfies each of the criteria for entry. The Decree was the product of procedurally fair negotiations; its terms are substantively fair and reasonable; and it is consistent with the objectives of the CWA, RCRA, CERCLA, and the MBTA.

A. Procedural Fairness

The Consent Decree was the product of arm's-length negotiations conducted over approximately nine months, from the July 30, 2024 agreement in principle through the February 3, 2025 final agreement. The negotiations were informed by years of prior administrative proceedings, technical investigations, and data exchanges, ensuring that all parties had access to the factual information necessary to make informed judgments regarding the appropriate scope, cost, and timing of remediation and other relief.

The negotiations were conducted under the supervision and with the facilitation of Magistrate Judge Clara Finnegan, who was appointed by this Court on May 15, 2024 to serve as mediator. Magistrate Judge Finnegan conducted multiple mediation sessions between May and July 2024, during which the parties exchanged views on liability, the scope and cost of necessary remediation, and the appropriate level of civil penalties. The mediation sessions contributed materially to the parties' ability to reach an agreement in principle on July 30, 2024.

Following the agreement in principle, the parties engaged in an intensive process of drafting and negotiating the specific terms of the Decree. This process involved multiple rounds of draft exchanges and redlining, including the United States' initial draft (November 8, 2024), Defendants' first redline (December 16, 2024), the United States' counter-redline (January 14, 2025), and Defendants' second redline (January 24, 2025). The parties resolved all remaining open issues during an in-person negotiation session on February 3, 2025 — a session that lasted a full day and addressed the final contested issues concerning the Ridgecrest remediation timeline, the total amount of financial assurance, and the escalation rates for stipulated penalties.

Throughout the negotiation process, all parties were represented by experienced and capable counsel. The Defendants were represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP as lead outside counsel, and by local counsel in each affected state: Holcroft, Dane & Weiss LLP in Montana, sagebrush Law Group, PLLC in Nevada, and Baxter, Tully & Crane PLLC in West Virginia. The United States was represented by the Department of Justice's Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The co-plaintiff States participated through their respective Attorneys General offices: Annika Hedstrom, Assistant Attorney General of Montana; Ricardo Fuentes, Deputy Attorney General of Nevada; and Loretta May Hatcher, Assistant Attorney General of West Virginia.

The negotiation process was conducted at arm's length, with vigorous advocacy on both sides. The parties made genuine compromises on key issues, and the final Decree reflects a carefully balanced resolution that accounts for the interests of all parties, the strength of the evidence, the risks of continued litigation, and the urgent need to address the environmental contamination at the four affected sites.

B. Substantive Fairness and Reasonableness

1. Remediation Obligations Are Comprehensive and Protective. The $343.5 million in total remediation obligations represents a comprehensive program of environmental cleanup and restoration across all four affected facilities. The remediation obligations are designed to address all identified contamination, achieve compliance with applicable environmental standards, and protect public health and the environment over the long term.

At the Ridgecrest site, the negotiated remediation cost of $198.6 million represents a reasonable compromise between Defendants' estimate of $187.5 million (prepared by Pinnacle Creek Environmental, LLC) and EPA's estimate of $224.0 million (prepared by Cascade Geosciences, Inc., led by Dr. Patricia Voss). The negotiated amount provides adequate funding for the design, construction, and thirty-year operation of an AMD treatment system, the stabilization and capping of the 425-acre tailings impoundment, and the restoration of water quality in Flint Creek. The thirty-year remediation timeline reflects the technical complexity of AMD treatment at a site of this scale, including the need for long-term water treatment, post-closure monitoring, and adaptive management. The timeline is consistent with EPA guidance on remediation of large-scale mine sites with active AMD generation, where treatment obligations commonly extend for decades.

At the Gallatin, Bonanza Creek, and Kanawha Bend sites, the remediation budgets of $42.8 million, $63.2 million, and $38.9 million, respectively, are based on detailed engineering estimates prepared by Pinnacle Creek Environmental, LLC and independently reviewed and validated by Cascade Geosciences, Inc. The estimates account for the full scope of investigation, design, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure activities required at each site.

The remediation schedules at all four sites include enforceable milestones with associated stipulated penalties, performance standards tied to applicable regulatory criteria, and completion criteria that must be satisfied before remediation obligations may be terminated. This structure ensures that the remediation obligations are not merely aspirational but are backed by meaningful enforcement mechanisms.

2. Civil Penalties Are Appropriate. The $31.5 million total civil penalty was calculated in accordance with EPA's Civil Penalty Policies under the Clean Water Act and RCRA, as well as the general factors set forth in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The penalty reflects a careful analysis of the following factors as to each site:

• Gravity of the Violations. The violations at issue are serious, involving unpermitted discharges of pollutants including heavy metals, cyanide, and mercury to waters of the United States; mismanagement of hazardous waste; failure to perform required corrective action; and avian mortalities in violation of the MBTA. The discharges at the Ridgecrest site resulted in copper concentrations in receiving waters exceeding the applicable aquatic life standard by more than 5,400 times.

• Economic Benefit of Noncompliance. The penalty calculation includes the estimated economic benefit that Defendants derived from their failure to comply with applicable environmental requirements, including the avoided costs of proper waste management, wastewater treatment, and corrective action.

• History of Noncompliance. Defendants have a documented history of environmental noncompliance, including the September 12, 2023 Notice of Violation covering all four sites, the Administrative Order on Consent at Ridgecrest, and the fourteen MPDES effluent limit exceedances at Gallatin between 2021 and 2024.

• Ability to Pay. Defendants have the financial capacity to pay the assessed penalty. TMC is a publicly traded company with FY2023 revenue of approximately US$3.56 billion. The quarterly installment payment schedule balances the deterrent effect of the penalty with Defendants' need to simultaneously fund substantial remediation obligations.

• Other Relevant Factors. The penalty accounts for Defendants' cooperation in the negotiation process and their commitment to the comprehensive remediation program established by the Decree.

The $31.5 million penalty is consistent with penalties assessed in comparable multi-site environmental enforcement actions and is sufficient to serve both the specific and general deterrent purposes of the applicable statutes.

3. EPA Past Costs Are Fully Reimbursed. The $18.1 million in past-cost reimbursement fully compensates EPA for its documented response costs at the Ridgecrest and Kanawha Bend sites. The $14.3 million for Ridgecrest removal actions reflects the actual costs incurred by EPA between 2021 and 2023, including the installation and operation of a temporary water treatment system, the repair of a compromised diversion channel, and the costs of EPA oversight and technical support. The $3.8 million for the Kanawha Bend emergency response reflects the actual costs incurred by EPA in responding to the June 14, 2020 sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River, including emergency containment, neutralization, and environmental monitoring. The cost documentation has been provided to Defendants and has been accepted as part of the Decree negotiations.

4. SEPs Provide Meaningful Environmental Benefits. The three supplemental environmental projects totaling $12.0 million have a direct nexus to the violations alleged in this action and will provide meaningful, concrete environmental and public health benefits to the communities most affected by Defendants' operations.

The Flint Creek Watershed Restoration Project ($5.5 million) directly addresses the watershed that has been degraded by decades of acid mine drainage and tailings seepage from the Ridgecrest Mine. The stream-bank stabilization, riparian replanting, and fish-passage improvements along twelve miles of Flint Creek will provide lasting ecological benefits to a high-quality trout stream and important recreational resource.

The Battle Mountain Community Drinking Water Improvement Project ($3.5 million) benefits the community nearest to the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine by upgrading the municipal water treatment facility to address drinking water quality concerns that have been exacerbated by regional mining activity.

The Institute Community Air Quality Monitoring Network ($3.0 million) addresses the longstanding concerns of the community surrounding the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant by providing real-time, publicly accessible air quality monitoring data from six strategically located monitoring stations.

Each SEP is subject to enforceable milestones, reporting requirements, and verification by the independent monitor. The SEPs were selected and designed in accordance with EPA's Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy and satisfy all applicable nexus and community-benefit requirements.

5. Financial Assurance Ensures Performance. The $245.0 million in financial assurance provides a robust guarantee that the required remediation will be completed even in the event of Defendants' inability or unwillingness to perform. The financial assurance package consists of a $165.0 million surety bond issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. — a creditworthy surety with an A.M. Best financial strength rating of A+ (Superior) — and an $80.0 million remediation trust fund at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A., with an initial deposit of $80.0 million.

The total financial assurance of $245.0 million closely approximates the NPV of the total remediation obligations ($245.1 million at a 3% discount rate), ensuring that the full estimated cost of remediation is secured. Annual adjustment mechanisms built into both the surety bond and the trust agreement ensure that the financial assurance remains adequate over the multi-decade life of the Decree, accounting for changes in estimated remediation costs, inflation, and the completion of remediation milestones.

6. Independent Monitor Ensures Accountability. The appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as independent monitor provides a layer of accountability and transparency that serves both the interests of the parties and the public interest. The monitor's quarterly audit authority ensures that compliance with the Decree is assessed on a regular and systematic basis, and the annual public reports provide transparency to affected communities, regulators, and other stakeholders. The selection of Verdant Analytics was the product of a joint process involving EPA and Defendants, and Dr. Kamal Osei's extensive experience in environmental compliance auditing and remediation oversight ensures that the monitor possesses the technical qualifications necessary to fulfill the role effectively.

7. Stipulated Penalties Incentivize Compliance. The escalating stipulated penalty structure — $1,500 per day per violation for the first thirty days, $3,000 per day per violation for days thirty-one through sixty, and $5,500 per day per violation thereafter — provides a meaningful and progressively intensifying economic incentive for timely compliance with all Decree obligations. The penalty rates are consistent with those in comparable environmental consent decrees and are calibrated to ensure that noncompliance is significantly more costly than compliance. The requirement that stipulated penalties be deposited into an escrow account pending dispute resolution ensures that the penalties serve their intended deterrent function while preserving Defendants' right to contest the assessment through the Decree's dispute-resolution mechanism.

C. Consistency with Statutory Objectives

1. Clean Water Act. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of the Clean Water Act, which are "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The Decree eliminates the unpermitted discharges at the Ridgecrest, Gallatin, and Bonanza Creek sites by requiring comprehensive remediation, including the construction and operation of water treatment systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards. At the Ridgecrest site, the Decree's remediation program will restore water quality in Flint Creek, a valuable trout stream and tributary of the Clark Fork River. At the Bonanza Creek site, the liner repair and containment program will prevent future releases of cyanide- and mercury-bearing process solution to the ephemeral tributary of the Reese River. The civil penalties assessed under the Decree serve the CWA's deterrent function by imposing significant financial consequences for Defendants' violations.

2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of RCRA, which include ensuring "that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a manner which protects human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b). The Decree requires comprehensive corrective action at all four sites, addresses the unpermitted storage and treatment of hazardous waste, and brings Defendants into full RCRA compliance through enforceable milestones and performance standards. At the Gallatin site, the Decree requires corrective action at all three SWMUs and remediation of CS₂ groundwater contamination. At the Kanawha Bend site, the Decree requires closure of the former surface impoundment and treatment of the DNAPL plume in the fractured bedrock aquifer. The Decree's corrective action requirements are consistent with the RCRA corrective action program and with EPA's guidance on the selection and implementation of corrective measures.

3. CERCLA. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of CERCLA, which include ensuring "that those responsible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from [releases of hazardous substances] bear the costs of their actions." S. Rep. No. 96-848, at 13 (1980). The Decree provides full reimbursement of EPA's past costs ($18.1 million) at the Ridgecrest and Kanawha Bend sites, and establishes a comprehensive framework for long-term remediation at the Ridgecrest site consistent with CERCLA's remedial objectives and the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The financial assurance provisions ensure that funds will be available to complete the remediation even in the event of Defendants' inability to perform, consistent with CERCLA's mandate that responsible parties bear the costs of cleanup.

4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Consent Decree addresses the seventeen documented avian mortalities that occurred at the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine's solution ponds between 2021 and 2023, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Decree's remediation program at the Bonanza Creek site includes the installation of wildlife deterrent systems — specifically, solution-pond netting and hazing devices — designed to prevent birds and other wildlife from coming into contact with toxic process solutions. These measures are consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidelines for preventing avian mortalities at mining operations and will provide ongoing protection for migratory birds in the Bonanza Creek area.

VII. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

A. Overview. As described above, the proposed Consent Decree was lodged with this Court on February 19, 2025, and a notice inviting public comment was published in the Federal Register on or about the same date. See 90 Fed. Reg. _ (Feb. 19, 2025). The thirty-day public comment period closed on March 21, 2025. During the comment period, the United States received fourteen comments from a range of interested parties, including individual citizens, community organizations, environmental advocacy groups, local government representatives, and industry stakeholders. The United States has carefully reviewed each comment and provides its responses to the substantive comments below.

The United States appreciates the public's engagement with this important enforcement matter and recognizes the significant interest that affected communities have in ensuring that the Consent

DRAFT — April 2, 2025 — Prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP (Matter No. 1039-00003) for DOJ review, revision, and filing. Final filing targeted for April 7, 2025. Subject to revision by the United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section. Attorney work product — privileged and confidential until filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiffs,
and
STATE OF NEVADA and STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA,
Co-Plaintiffs,
v.
TORCHLIGHT MINING CORP.; TORCHLIGHT MINING (U.S.) INC.; TORCHLIGHT SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC.; RIDGECREST MINE HOLDINGS, LLC; and BONANZA CREEK MINING, LLC,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 9:24-cv-00087-DWM
Hon. Donald W. Molloy Senior U.S. District Judge (by designation)
UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE
I. INTRODUCTION
The United States of America ("United States"), on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), together with co-plaintiffs the State of Montana, the State of Nevada, and the State of West Virginia (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and the Court's inherent authority to approve consent decrees, to enter the Consent Decree ("Decree") lodged with the Court on February 19, 2025. The Decree resolves alleged violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.; and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., at four facilities operated or formerly operated by Defendants Torchlight Mining Corp. and its United States subsidiaries across the States of Montana, Nevada, and West Virginia.
The four facilities at issue in this action are: (1) the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine, located near Drummond, Granite County, Montana; (2) the Gallatin Chemical Works, located in Belgrade, Gallatin County, Montana; (3) the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine, located in Lander County, Nevada; and (4) the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant, located in Institute, Kanawha County, West Virginia. These facilities have been the source of significant environmental contamination, including acid mine drainage containing elevated concentrations of dissolved copper, molybdenum, and selenium; carbon disulfide contamination of groundwater; cyanide and mercury releases into surface water; and heavy-metal and dense non-aqueous phase liquid ("DNAPL") contamination in soils and fractured bedrock aquifers.
The Consent Decree was lodged with this Court on February 19, 2025, and a thirty-day public comment period was opened in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d), the Department of Justice's policy on consent decrees in environmental cases, and the applicable notice provisions of CERCLA § 122(d)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(2). Notice of the proposed Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register on February 19, 2025, and the public comment period closed on March 21, 2025. The United States has reviewed all comments received during the comment period and addresses each substantive comment herein.
The Consent Decree represents a comprehensive resolution of the United States' claims against Defendants. In summary, the Decree provides for:
• Remediation Obligations: A total of $343.5 million in nominal remediation costs ($245.1 million net present value ("NPV") at a 3% discount rate) across all four sites, with remediation timelines spanning up to thirty years and including enforceable milestones, performance standards, and completion criteria;
• Civil Penalties: $31.5 million in civil penalties, payable in four equal quarterly installments of $7.875 million each, calculated in accordance with EPA's civil penalty policies under the CWA and RCRA;
• Reimbursement of EPA Past Costs: $18.1 million in full reimbursement of EPA's past response costs, comprising $14.3 million for removal actions at the Ridgecrest site (2021–2023) and $3.8 million for emergency response at the Kanawha Bend site (2020);
• Supplemental Environmental Projects: $12.0 million for three supplemental environmental projects ("SEPs") with a direct nexus to the violations and providing meaningful benefits to communities impacted by Defendants' operations;
• Independent Environmental Monitor: Appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as an independent, court-approved environmental monitor with quarterly compliance-audit authority and annual public reporting obligations, at an estimated cost of $4.8 million over five years;
• Financial Assurance: $245.0 million in financial assurance instruments, comprising a $165.0 million surety bond issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. and an $80.0 million remediation trust fund established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A.
The grand total estimated obligation under the Consent Decree is approximately $409.9 million in nominal terms (approximately $311.5 million on an NPV/cash-equivalent basis).
For the reasons set forth below, the Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, adequate, and consistent with the objectives of the CWA, RCRA, CERCLA, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq. The United States respectfully requests that this Court enter the Consent Decree.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Complaint and Answer
On January 18, 2024, the United States, acting on behalf of EPA, filed the Complaint in this action on behalf of itself and the State of Montana, alleging violations of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, arising from Defendants' operations at the four identified facilities. ECF No. 1. The Complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, on referral from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The States of Nevada and West Virginia were joined as co-plaintiffs in the action, reflecting the multi-state nature of the environmental harm caused by Defendants' operations and the interest of those states in remediation of contaminated sites within their borders.
On March 5, 2024, Defendants Torchlight Mining Corp., Torchlight Mining (U.S.) Inc., Torchlight Specialty Chemicals, Inc., Ridgecrest Mine Holdings, LLC, and Bonanza Creek Mining, LLC filed their Answer, generally denying the substantive allegations in the Complaint while admitting certain jurisdictional and corporate-structure facts. ECF No. 14. Defendants did not assert any affirmative defenses under CERCLA § 107(b), and their Answer reserved all rights to raise additional defenses should the litigation proceed to trial.
B. Tolling Agreement and Mediation
Following the filing of the Answer, the parties engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the possibility of a negotiated resolution. On April 22, 2024, the parties entered into a Tolling Agreement tolling all applicable statutes of limitations through December 31, 2025, to permit settlement negotiations without prejudice to either side's claims or defenses. ECF No. 22. The Tolling Agreement reflected the parties' shared recognition that the complexity and multi-site nature of the case made early settlement discussions appropriate, and that the significant environmental harm at issue warranted an expedited path toward remediation.
On May 15, 2024, this Court entered an Order referring the matter to mediation before Magistrate Judge Clara Finnegan. ECF No. 28. Magistrate Judge Finnegan conducted a series of mediation sessions between May and July 2024. The mediation sessions were productive and facilitated candid exchanges between the parties regarding the factual and legal bases for the United States' claims, the scope and cost of necessary remediation, and the appropriate level of civil penalties. On July 30, 2024, following the conclusion of the mediation sessions, the parties reached an agreement in principle on the framework for a consent decree. ECF No. 41 (Joint Status Report advising the Court of the agreement in principle).
C. Consent Decree Negotiation
Following the agreement in principle, the parties engaged in an intensive period of detailed negotiations to translate the framework agreement into a fully operative consent decree. On November 8, 2024, the United States circulated the first full draft consent decree to Defendants and to the co-plaintiff States. The draft addressed all elements of the proposed resolution, including site-specific remediation obligations, schedules and milestones, civil penalties, past-cost reimbursement, supplemental environmental projects, financial assurance requirements, the appointment and role of an independent environmental monitor, stipulated penalties, force majeure, dispute resolution, and termination provisions.
On December 16, 2024, Defendants submitted their redlined revisions to the draft consent decree, proposing modifications to, among other things, certain remediation milestones, the scope of the independent monitor's authority, the amount of financial assurance, and the structure of the stipulated penalty provisions.
On January 14, 2025, the United States provided its counter-redline, accepting certain of Defendants' proposed modifications, rejecting others, and offering alternative formulations where the parties' initial positions diverged significantly.
On January 24, 2025, Defendants submitted a second redline, addressing the United States' counter-proposals and narrowing the remaining areas of disagreement to a manageable set of open issues principally concerning the Ridgecrest remediation timeline, the total amount of financial assurance, and the escalation rates for stipulated penalties.
On February 3, 2025, the parties convened an in-person negotiation session at the offices of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. The session was attended by representatives of the Department of Justice, EPA, the Attorneys General of Montana, Nevada, and West Virginia, and counsel for Defendants. Over the course of a full day of intensive negotiation, the parties resolved all remaining open issues and finalized the substantially agreed consent decree text.
On February 19, 2025, the Consent Decree was lodged with this Court for the thirty-day public comment period required by 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d) and the Department of Justice's consent decree policy. ECF No. 53.
D. Public Comment Period
A notice of the proposed Consent Decree was published in the Federal Register on or about February 19, 2025, inviting public comment. See 90 Fed. Reg. _ (Feb. 19, 2025). The notice described the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, identified the four affected facilities, summarized the principal relief provisions, and provided instructions for submitting comments to the Department of Justice. The thirty-day public comment period closed on March 21, 2025.
During the comment period, the United States received fourteen comments from individuals, community organizations, environmental advocacy groups, and other interested parties. The United States has reviewed all comments received and addresses the substantive comments in Section VII below. On the whole, the comments reflected community interest in ensuring that the remediation obligations are comprehensive and timely, that the civil penalties are sufficient to deter future violations, that the supplemental environmental projects provide genuine benefits to affected communities, and that the financial assurance mechanisms are robust. As discussed below, the Consent Decree fully addresses these concerns.
E. Prior Related Administrative Proceedings
The enforcement action giving rise to this litigation did not arise in a vacuum; it followed a series of prior administrative proceedings through which EPA sought to address environmental conditions at the affected facilities.
On September 15, 2022, EPA and Torchlight Mining Corp. executed an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") under CERCLA § 106, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, for the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine site (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2022-0039). The AOC required Torchlight to perform certain interim removal actions to address immediate threats from acid mine drainage, including the installation of a temporary water treatment system and the repair of a compromised diversion channel. While Torchlight undertook certain work under the AOC, EPA determined that the response actions taken were insufficient to address the full scope of contamination at the site, and the AOC's terms were ultimately subsumed by the broader enforcement action filed in this Court.
The Gallatin Chemical Works has operated under RCRA Permit No. MTD098712456, issued by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") under EPA authorization. The facility has been subject to RCRA corrective action requirements, and three Solid Waste Management Units ("SWMUs") have been identified at the site. Despite the permit requirements, Defendants failed to perform the corrective action necessary to address carbon disulfide contamination in groundwater and other contamination associated with the SWMUs.
Similarly, the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant has operated under RCRA Permit No. WVD048823915, issued by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ("WVDEP") under EPA authorization. The facility has been subject to RCRA corrective action requirements related to a former surface impoundment and other areas of contamination. Defendants failed to close the former surface impoundment as required by the permit and applicable RCRA regulations, and engaged in unpermitted treatment of listed hazardous wastes K062 and D002.
On September 12, 2023, EPA issued a comprehensive Notice of Violation ("NOV") to Torchlight Mining Corp. covering all four facilities at issue in this litigation. The NOV detailed the alleged violations of the CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA at each site and served as the precursor to the Department of Justice's referral and the filing of the Complaint on January 18, 2024.
III. BACKGROUND
A. The Defendants
Torchlight Mining Corp. ("TMC") is a corporation organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act, dual-listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "TRC." TMC is headquartered at 1800 Bayfield Tower, 401 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2Y4, Canada, with United States headquarters at 750 Copper Ridge Boulevard, Suite 200, Helena, Montana 59601. TMC is a diversified mining and specialty chemicals company that operates fourteen mines and six chemical processing facilities across North America, South America, and Australia. TMC's mining operations focus principally on copper, molybdenum, and gold extraction. TMC employs approximately 11,400 individuals worldwide, of whom approximately 4,200 are located in the United States. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, TMC reported consolidated revenue of approximately C$4.82 billion (approximately US$3.56 billion at prevailing exchange rates). TMC is the ultimate parent company of each of the other Defendants in this action.
Torchlight Mining (U.S.) Inc. ("TM(US)") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, wholly owned by TMC. TM(US) serves as the direct operator of TMC's mining operations in the United States. TM(US) holds Employer Identification Number 83-2047156. TM(US) is the direct parent of each of the remaining Defendants.
Torchlight Specialty Chemicals, Inc. ("TSC") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, wholly owned by TM(US). TSC operates the Gallatin Chemical Works in Belgrade, Montana, and the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant in Institute, West Virginia. TSC holds Employer Identification Number 47-3819204.
Ridgecrest Mine Holdings, LLC ("RMH") is a Montana limited liability company (Montana Secretary of State ID E1042738), wholly owned by TM(US). RMH holds the real property and mineral rights associated with the Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine in Granite County, Montana.
Bonanza Creek Mining, LLC ("BCM") is a Nevada limited liability company (Nevada Secretary of State Entity No. E0518294731), wholly owned by TM(US). BCM holds the real property, mineral rights, and water rights associated with the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine in Lander County, Nevada.
B. The Four Facilities
1. Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine. The Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine is located at 14200 Ridgecrest Mine Road, Drummond, Granite County, Montana 59832. The mine occupies approximately 3,200 acres of active mine footprint within a total controlled property of approximately 8,700 acres. The site is situated in the Flint Creek Valley, approximately twelve miles south of the Town of Drummond.
The Ridgecrest Mine is an open-pit copper-molybdenum mine that has been operational since 1978. Active mining operations ceased on December 31, 2019, and the site is currently in a closure and reclamation phase. The mine has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List ("NPL") under CERCLA, and has been the subject of an Administrative Order on Consent executed between EPA and TMC on September 15, 2022 (EPA Docket No. CERCLA-08-2022-0039).
The principal environmental concerns at the Ridgecrest site arise from acid mine drainage ("AMD") generated by the exposure of sulfide-bearing waste rock and pit walls to air and water. AMD at the site contains dissolved copper at average concentrations of 47 mg/L, vastly exceeding the State of Montana's chronic aquatic life standard of 0.0087 mg/L—a factor of more than 5,400 times the applicable standard. The AMD also contains elevated concentrations of molybdenum (average 1.2 mg/L), selenium (average 0.082 mg/L), and sulfate (average 3,400 mg/L). In addition, the site includes a 425-acre tailings impoundment with documented seepage to Flint Creek, a high-quality trout stream and tributary of the Clark Fork River.
The alleged violations at the Ridgecrest site include: (a) unpermitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311, including discharges of AMD to Flint Creek and its tributaries; (b) mismanagement of hazardous waste generated by the solvent extraction/electrowinning ("SX/EW") circuit in violation of RCRA § 3004, 42 U.S.C. § 6924; and (c) liability for $14.3 million in EPA removal action costs incurred between 2021 and 2023 under CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
2. Gallatin Chemical Works. The Gallatin Chemical Works is located at 8800 Industrial Park Lane, Belgrade, Gallatin County, Montana 59714. The facility occupies approximately 145 acres and is situated within the Belgrade industrial corridor, approximately seven miles west of the City of Bozeman.
The Gallatin Chemical Works is a specialty chemical manufacturing facility that produces flotation reagents, including sodium xanthate and dithiophosphate collectors, used in the mineral processing industry. The facility has been operational since 1993 and remains an active production facility. The facility operates under RCRA Permit No. MTD098712456 and is subject to corrective action requirements.
The principal environmental concerns at the Gallatin site involve contamination of groundwater with carbon disulfide ("CS₂"), a volatile and toxic solvent used in the xanthate manufacturing process. Groundwater monitoring data indicates CS₂ concentrations as high as 890 µg/L in on-site monitoring wells, approximately eighty-nine times the federal maximum contaminant level ("MCL") of 10 µg/L. Additional contaminants include xanthate decomposition products and volatile organic compounds ("VOCs"), including toluene and xylene, in subsurface soils. Three Solid Waste Management Units ("SWMUs") have been identified at the facility, each requiring corrective action.
The alleged violations at the Gallatin site include: (a) unpermitted storage of hazardous waste and failure to perform required corrective action in violation of RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and (b) fourteen exceedances of Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("MPDES") effluent limitations for CS₂ and total suspended solids ("TSS") between January 2021 and June 2024, in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311.
3. Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The Bonanza Creek Gold Mine is located off County Road 447, Mile Marker 12, in Lander County, Nevada 89820. The mine occupies approximately 5,600 acres of active mine footprint within a total controlled property of approximately 12,400 acres, situated in the high desert terrain of central Nevada, approximately thirty miles south of the Town of Battle Mountain.
The Bonanza Creek Mine is an open-pit, heap-leach gold mine that has been operational since 2001 and remains an active mining operation. The heap-leach process involves the application of a dilute cyanide solution to crushed ore stacked on lined pads; the pregnant solution containing dissolved gold is collected and processed for gold recovery.
The principal environmental concerns at the Bonanza Creek site arise from releases of process solution containing weak acid dissociable ("WAD") cyanide and mercury from the heap-leach pad. Three documented releases of process solution occurred through a torn liner in the heap-leach pad, resulting in unpermitted discharges to an ephemeral tributary of the Reese River on March 17, 2022; August 9, 2022; and January 22, 2023. Water quality samples collected following these releases documented WAD cyanide concentrations of 0.62 mg/L (against a discharge limit of 0.022 mg/L) and mercury concentrations averaging 12.4 µg/L (against a water quality criterion of 0.77 µg/L). In addition, selenium has been detected at elevated levels in the developing pit lake. Seventeen documented avian mortalities occurred at the facility's solution ponds between 2021 and 2023, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The alleged violations at the Bonanza Creek site include: (a) three unpermitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States in violation of CWA § 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311; (b) management of spent heap-leach ore as hazardous waste in violation of RCRA § 3004, 42 U.S.C. § 6924; and (c) seventeen documented avian mortalities at solution ponds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.
4. Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant is located at 2200 Chemical Valley Road, Institute, Kanawha County, West Virginia 25112. The facility occupies approximately 78 acres in the Kanawha River Valley, within the area historically known as "Chemical Valley," approximately nine miles northwest of Charleston, West Virginia.
The Kanawha Bend facility manufactures leaching agents and performs sulfuric acid regeneration for use in mining and industrial processes. The facility has been operational since 1985 and remains active. The facility operates under RCRA Permit No. WVD048823915 and is subject to corrective action requirements.
The principal environmental concerns at the Kanawha Bend site involve contamination from a former waste lagoon and surface impoundment, as well as from ongoing operations. Sulfuric acid residuals have resulted in soil pH values as low as 1.8 in the vicinity of the former waste lagoon. Heavy metals, including lead (maximum concentration 4,200 mg/kg) and arsenic (maximum concentration 890 mg/kg), have been detected in soils near the former waste lagoon. In addition, a dense non-aqueous phase liquid ("DNAPL") plume consisting of chlorinated solvents has been identified in the fractured bedrock aquifer beneath the facility, posing a significant long-term threat to groundwater quality.
The alleged violations at the Kanawha Bend site include: (a) failure to close a former surface impoundment and unpermitted treatment of listed hazardous wastes K062 and D002 in violation of RCRA §§ 3004 and 3005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6924, 6925; and (b) liability for $3.8 million in EPA emergency response costs incurred following a sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River on June 14, 2020, under CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607.
IV. TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE
The Consent Decree contains detailed provisions governing remediation, civil penalties, cost reimbursement, supplemental environmental projects, independent monitoring, financial assurance, stipulated penalties, force majeure, dispute resolution, and termination. The principal terms are summarized below.
A. Remedial Action Requirements
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to perform comprehensive remedial actions at each of the four affected facilities. The total nominal cost of the remediation obligations is $343.5 million (NPV at a 3% discount rate: $245.1 million). The remediation obligations are site-specific and reflect the unique contaminant profiles, hydrogeologic conditions, and technical challenges at each facility. The remediation timelines span up to thirty years and include enforceable milestones, performance standards tied to applicable regulatory criteria, and completion criteria that must be satisfied before remediation obligations may be terminated.
Ridgecrest Copper-Molybdenum Mine. The remediation obligations at the Ridgecrest site represent the largest component of the Decree, with a negotiated remediation cost of $198.6 million over thirty years (NPV at 3%: $134.9 million). The remediation program encompasses: (i) the design, construction, and long-term operation of an acid mine drainage treatment system capable of treating AMD to meet Montana surface water quality standards before discharge; (ii) stabilization of the 425-acre tailings impoundment, including regrading, capping, and installation of a groundwater interception system to prevent continued seepage to Flint Creek; and (iii) Flint Creek water quality restoration, including in-stream and riparian restoration measures. Defendants are required to submit a Remedial Action Work Plan to EPA for review and approval no later than December 14, 2025. Remedy construction is required to commence no later than June 14, 2027. The remediation obligation runs through June 14, 2055.
Gallatin Chemical Works. The remediation obligations at the Gallatin site total $42.8 million over fifteen years (NPV at 3%: $34.1 million). The remediation program includes: (i) investigation and corrective action at the three identified SWMUs; (ii) design, installation, and operation of a groundwater treatment system to address CS₂ contamination and achieve MCL compliance at the facility boundary; and (iii) removal or treatment in place of VOC-contaminated subsurface soils. Defendants are required to submit a Corrective Measures Study ("CMS") to EPA for review and approval no later than June 14, 2026.
Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The remediation obligations at the Bonanza Creek site total $63.2 million over twenty years (NPV at 3%: $47.1 million). The remediation program includes: (i) repair and replacement of the compromised heap-leach pad liner; (ii) installation of additional containment and leak detection systems; (iii) design, installation, and operation of a cyanide and mercury treatment system for process solution prior to any permitted discharge; and (iv) installation of wildlife deterrent systems, including solution-pond netting and hazing devices, to prevent future avian mortalities. The liner repair program is required to commence no later than June 14, 2026.
Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The remediation obligations at the Kanawha Bend site total $38.9 million over twenty years (NPV at 3%: $29.0 million). The remediation program includes: (i) interim stabilization measures for the former surface impoundment and surrounding areas; (ii) investigation and treatment of the DNAPL plume in the fractured bedrock aquifer; and (iii) final closure of the former surface impoundment in accordance with RCRA closure requirements. The interim stabilization measures are required to be completed no later than December 14, 2026.
B. Civil Penalties
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to pay a total civil penalty of $31.5 million. The penalty is allocated among the four sites as follows:
The civil penalty is payable in four equal quarterly installments of $7,875,000 each. The first installment is due within thirty days of the Effective Date of the Consent Decree (i.e., on or about July 14, 2025, based on the projected Effective Date of June 14, 2025). Subsequent installments are due at twelve, twenty-four, and thirty-six months after entry of the Decree, respectively. Interest on any unpaid balance accrues at the rate specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
C. Reimbursement of EPA Past Costs
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to reimburse EPA a total of $18.1 million in past response costs. This amount comprises $14.3 million for removal actions conducted by EPA at the Ridgecrest site between 2021 and 2023, and $3.8 million for the emergency response conducted by EPA at the Kanawha Bend site following the June 14, 2020 sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River. Past-cost reimbursement is payable in full within sixty days of the Effective Date.
D. Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to fund and implement three supplemental environmental projects totaling $12.0 million. Each SEP has a direct nexus to the violations alleged in this action and provides meaningful environmental or public health benefits to communities impacted by Defendants' operations. The three SEPs are:
Flint Creek Watershed Restoration Project (Montana) — $5.5 million. This project will fund stream-bank stabilization, riparian replanting, and fish-passage improvements along approximately twelve miles of Flint Creek downstream of the Ridgecrest Mine. The project directly addresses degradation of the Flint Creek watershed caused by decades of acid mine drainage and tailings seepage from the Ridgecrest facility. Defendants are required to complete the project within five years of the Effective Date, subject to enforceable milestones and reporting requirements.
Battle Mountain Community Drinking Water Improvement Project (Nevada) — $3.5 million. This project will fund the upgrade of the municipal water treatment facility in the Town of Battle Mountain, Lander County, Nevada, the community nearest to the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine. The upgrade will include installation of advanced filtration and treatment technology to address naturally occurring arsenic and other contaminants that have been exacerbated by regional mining activity. Defendants are required to complete the project within three years of the Effective Date.
Institute Community Air Quality Monitoring Network (West Virginia) — $3.0 million. This project will fund the installation and ten-year operation and maintenance of six ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Institute and South Charleston areas of Kanawha County, West Virginia, in the vicinity of the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant. The monitoring network will track concentrations of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM₂.₅), volatile organic compounds, and other pollutants of concern to the local community. Monitoring data will be made available to the public in real time through a web-based platform. Defendants are required to complete installation within eighteen months of the Effective Date and to fund operations for ten years.
E. Independent Environmental Monitor
The Consent Decree provides for the appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as the court-approved independent third-party environmental auditor and monitor. Verdant Analytics will be led by Dr. Kamal Osei, Senior Managing Director, who brings more than twenty-five years of experience in environmental compliance auditing, remediation oversight, and federal enforcement matters.
The independent monitor's duties include: (i) conducting quarterly compliance audits at each of the four facilities, covering all aspects of Defendants' obligations under the Decree; (ii) reviewing Defendants' submissions to EPA, including work plans, progress reports, and completion certifications; (iii) preparing and submitting annual public reports summarizing the status of compliance with the Decree, including an assessment of whether remediation milestones are being met and whether performance standards are being achieved; and (iv) reporting to EPA and the Court any material instances of noncompliance or any conditions that may pose a threat to public health or the environment.
The estimated cost of the independent monitor over the initial five-year term is $4.8 million (approximately $960,000 per year). The monitor's costs are borne by Defendants.
F. Financial Assurance
The Consent Decree requires Defendants to establish and maintain financial assurance totaling $245.0 million to ensure that funds are available to complete the required remediation in the event that Defendants are unable or unwilling to perform their obligations.
The financial assurance package consists of two components:
Surety Bond. A surety bond in the amount of $165.0 million, issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. (Bond No. ISA-ENV-2025-08934), with EPA as obligee. The annual premium on the bond is 1.85%, or approximately $3.0525 million per year. The bond is subject to annual renewal and adjustment to reflect changes in the estimated cost to complete the remaining remediation obligations.
Remediation Trust Fund. A remediation trust fund in the amount of $80.0 million, established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A. (Trust Agreement No. LTC-REM-2025-1177), with David Henshaw as Trust Officer. The trust fund requires an initial deposit of $80.0 million and is subject to annual adjustment based on the estimated cost to complete the remaining remediation. The trust agreement designates EPA as the sole beneficiary and provides that trust funds may be disbursed only upon EPA authorization for approved remedial activities.
In addition, an escrow agreement for stipulated penalty deposits has been established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A. Under this agreement, any stipulated penalties assessed under the Decree are to be deposited into the escrow account pending resolution of any disputes.
The deadline for Defendants to establish the remediation trust fund and post all financial assurance instruments is September 12, 2025.
G. Stipulated Penalties
The Consent Decree contains stipulated penalty provisions designed to provide a meaningful economic incentive for timely compliance with all Decree obligations. The stipulated penalties are assessed on a per-day, per-violation basis at the following escalating rates:
Stipulated penalties accrue automatically upon a failure to meet any Decree obligation and are payable to the United States upon demand. Pending resolution of any dispute regarding the assessment of stipulated penalties, the assessed amounts are to be deposited into the escrow account established at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A.
H. Force Majeure
The Consent Decree includes a standard EPA force-majeure provision. Under this provision, Defendants may assert a force-majeure defense to the assessment of stipulated penalties if a failure to meet a Decree obligation is caused by circumstances entirely beyond Defendants' control that could not have been foreseen or prevented by the exercise of due diligence. Force-majeure events include, but are not limited to, acts of God, war, strikes, and regulatory delays not caused by Defendants. Defendants are required to provide written notice to EPA within fifteen days of the occurrence of any event that Defendants contend constitutes a force-majeure event, and the notice must include a description of the event, its anticipated duration, the Decree obligations affected, and the steps Defendants are taking to mitigate the effects of the event. Disputes regarding force-majeure claims are resolved through the Decree's dispute-resolution mechanism.
I. Dispute Resolution
The Consent Decree establishes a three-tier dispute-resolution mechanism for resolving disagreements between the parties regarding the interpretation or implementation of the Decree:
Tier 1: Informal Negotiation. The disputing parties shall first attempt to resolve any dispute through informal negotiation for a period of thirty days following written notice of the dispute.
Tier 2: Formal EPA Decision. If informal negotiation does not resolve the dispute within thirty days, EPA shall issue a formal written decision within thirty days of the expiration of the informal negotiation period. EPA's decision shall set forth the factual and legal bases for the determination and shall specify the action, if any, that Defendants are required to take.
Tier 3: Judicial Review. If Defendants object to EPA's formal decision, Defendants may petition this Court for judicial review within thirty days of EPA's decision. The standard of review applicable to the Court's consideration of EPA's decision shall be determined by the nature of the dispute, with technical or scientific determinations reviewed under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard and legal determinations reviewed de novo.
J. Effective Date and Termination
The Effective Date of the Consent Decree is thirty days after entry of the Decree by this Court, as specified in Section IV of the Decree. Based on the United States' target entry date of May 15, 2025, the projected Effective Date is June 14, 2025.
Termination of the Decree occurs on a site-by-site basis, upon certification of completion by EPA and the independent monitor. Termination for any individual site may not occur until at least five years after the completion of all remedial construction at the relevant site and only upon a demonstration that all performance standards have been met and maintained for the requisite period.
K. Aggregate Financial Summary
The following table summarizes the aggregate financial obligations of Defendants under the Consent Decree:
On an NPV/cash-equivalent basis, the grand total estimated obligation is approximately $311.5 million.
V. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE
A. General Standard
A consent decree in a federal environmental enforcement action should be entered by the court if the proposed decree is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" and is "consistent with the objectives of the governing statutes." United States v. Cannons Eng'g Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 85 (1st Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal., 50 F.3d 741, 748 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am., Inc., 949 F.2d 1409, 1435 (6th Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit, which governs this action, has consistently applied this standard. See Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748; United States v. Comunidades Unidas Contra la Contaminación, 204 F.3d 275, 280 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Court's role in reviewing a proposed consent decree is not to substitute its judgment for that of the parties or to determine whether the decree is the "best possible" resolution of the dispute. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 84. Rather, the Court's inquiry is whether the proposed decree "falls within the range of reasonableness." Id. at 85; see also Citizens for a Better Env't v. Gorsuch, 718 F.2d 1117, 1126 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ("[T]he court is not to reject a decree merely because it does not provide a remedy the court might consider ideal.").
The Supreme Court has recognized that "[c]onsent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement on their precise terms," and that "[t]he parties waive their right to litigate the issues involved in the case and thus save themselves the time, expense, and inevitable risk of litigation." United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681 (1971). Courts therefore afford significant respect to the parties' negotiated resolution, particularly where the decree reflects the informed judgment of the United States in a matter of public interest. See United States v. Kestrel Partners LLC, 56 F.3d 1448, 1460–61 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
B. Factors Considered
In evaluating a proposed consent decree, courts generally consider three categories of factors:
Procedural Fairness. The decree must have been reached through good-faith, arm's-length negotiation among the parties, with all parties represented by competent counsel and afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate in the negotiation process. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 86; United States v. Charles George Trucking, Inc., 34 F.3d 1081, 1084 (1st Cir. 1994). Courts examine whether the negotiation process was conducted at arm's length, whether all parties had access to relevant information, and whether the decree was the product of genuine compromise rather than capitulation by one side. See Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748.
Substantive Fairness and Reasonableness. The relief provided by the decree must be adequate in light of the claims asserted, the strength of the evidence, the risks of continued litigation, and the overall circumstances of the case. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 87. Courts consider whether the remedial obligations are comprehensive and protective of public health and the environment, whether the civil penalties serve the deterrent and punitive purposes of the applicable statutes, and whether the decree otherwise adequately addresses the alleged violations. Id.; United States v. Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp., 776 F.2d 410, 411–12 (2d Cir. 1985).
Consistency with the Public Interest and Statutory Objectives. The decree must be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the applicable environmental statutes. Cannons Eng'g, 899 F.2d at 89. In environmental enforcement cases, courts give "significant deference" to the United States' assessment that the proposed decree adequately addresses the violations and protects public health and the environment. Montrose, 50 F.3d at 748–49. This deference reflects the recognition that the Environmental Protection Agency possesses specialized expertise in assessing environmental risks and crafting appropriate remedial measures. Id. The views of interested parties, including public commenters, are also considered as part of the public-interest analysis. See 28 U.S.C. § 7003(d).
VI. THE CONSENT DECREE IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND CONSISTENT WITH STATUTORY OBJECTIVES
Applying the legal standards set forth above, the proposed Consent Decree satisfies each of the criteria for entry. The Decree was the product of procedurally fair negotiations; its terms are substantively fair and reasonable; and it is consistent with the objectives of the CWA, RCRA, CERCLA, and the MBTA.
A. Procedural Fairness
The Consent Decree was the product of arm's-length negotiations conducted over approximately nine months, from the July 30, 2024 agreement in principle through the February 3, 2025 final agreement. The negotiations were informed by years of prior administrative proceedings, technical investigations, and data exchanges, ensuring that all parties had access to the factual information necessary to make informed judgments regarding the appropriate scope, cost, and timing of remediation and other relief.
The negotiations were conducted under the supervision and with the facilitation of Magistrate Judge Clara Finnegan, who was appointed by this Court on May 15, 2024 to serve as mediator. Magistrate Judge Finnegan conducted multiple mediation sessions between May and July 2024, during which the parties exchanged views on liability, the scope and cost of necessary remediation, and the appropriate level of civil penalties. The mediation sessions contributed materially to the parties' ability to reach an agreement in principle on July 30, 2024.
Following the agreement in principle, the parties engaged in an intensive process of drafting and negotiating the specific terms of the Decree. This process involved multiple rounds of draft exchanges and redlining, including the United States' initial draft (November 8, 2024), Defendants' first redline (December 16, 2024), the United States' counter-redline (January 14, 2025), and Defendants' second redline (January 24, 2025). The parties resolved all remaining open issues during an in-person negotiation session on February 3, 2025 — a session that lasted a full day and addressed the final contested issues concerning the Ridgecrest remediation timeline, the total amount of financial assurance, and the escalation rates for stipulated penalties.
Throughout the negotiation process, all parties were represented by experienced and capable counsel. The Defendants were represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP as lead outside counsel, and by local counsel in each affected state: Holcroft, Dane & Weiss LLP in Montana, sagebrush Law Group, PLLC in Nevada, and Baxter, Tully & Crane PLLC in West Virginia. The United States was represented by the Department of Justice's Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and by EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. The co-plaintiff States participated through their respective Attorneys General offices: Annika Hedstrom, Assistant Attorney General of Montana; Ricardo Fuentes, Deputy Attorney General of Nevada; and Loretta May Hatcher, Assistant Attorney General of West Virginia.
The negotiation process was conducted at arm's length, with vigorous advocacy on both sides. The parties made genuine compromises on key issues, and the final Decree reflects a carefully balanced resolution that accounts for the interests of all parties, the strength of the evidence, the risks of continued litigation, and the urgent need to address the environmental contamination at the four affected sites.
B. Substantive Fairness and Reasonableness
1. Remediation Obligations Are Comprehensive and Protective. The $343.5 million in total remediation obligations represents a comprehensive program of environmental cleanup and restoration across all four affected facilities. The remediation obligations are designed to address all identified contamination, achieve compliance with applicable environmental standards, and protect public health and the environment over the long term.
At the Ridgecrest site, the negotiated remediation cost of $198.6 million represents a reasonable compromise between Defendants' estimate of $187.5 million (prepared by Pinnacle Creek Environmental, LLC) and EPA's estimate of $224.0 million (prepared by Cascade Geosciences, Inc., led by Dr. Patricia Voss). The negotiated amount provides adequate funding for the design, construction, and thirty-year operation of an AMD treatment system, the stabilization and capping of the 425-acre tailings impoundment, and the restoration of water quality in Flint Creek. The thirty-year remediation timeline reflects the technical complexity of AMD treatment at a site of this scale, including the need for long-term water treatment, post-closure monitoring, and adaptive management. The timeline is consistent with EPA guidance on remediation of large-scale mine sites with active AMD generation, where treatment obligations commonly extend for decades.
At the Gallatin, Bonanza Creek, and Kanawha Bend sites, the remediation budgets of $42.8 million, $63.2 million, and $38.9 million, respectively, are based on detailed engineering estimates prepared by Pinnacle Creek Environmental, LLC and independently reviewed and validated by Cascade Geosciences, Inc. The estimates account for the full scope of investigation, design, construction, operation, monitoring, and closure activities required at each site.
The remediation schedules at all four sites include enforceable milestones with associated stipulated penalties, performance standards tied to applicable regulatory criteria, and completion criteria that must be satisfied before remediation obligations may be terminated. This structure ensures that the remediation obligations are not merely aspirational but are backed by meaningful enforcement mechanisms.
2. Civil Penalties Are Appropriate. The $31.5 million total civil penalty was calculated in accordance with EPA's Civil Penalty Policies under the Clean Water Act and RCRA, as well as the general factors set forth in the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. The penalty reflects a careful analysis of the following factors as to each site:
• Gravity of the Violations. The violations at issue are serious, involving unpermitted discharges of pollutants including heavy metals, cyanide, and mercury to waters of the United States; mismanagement of hazardous waste; failure to perform required corrective action; and avian mortalities in violation of the MBTA. The discharges at the Ridgecrest site resulted in copper concentrations in receiving waters exceeding the applicable aquatic life standard by more than 5,400 times.
• Economic Benefit of Noncompliance. The penalty calculation includes the estimated economic benefit that Defendants derived from their failure to comply with applicable environmental requirements, including the avoided costs of proper waste management, wastewater treatment, and corrective action.
• History of Noncompliance. Defendants have a documented history of environmental noncompliance, including the September 12, 2023 Notice of Violation covering all four sites, the Administrative Order on Consent at Ridgecrest, and the fourteen MPDES effluent limit exceedances at Gallatin between 2021 and 2024.
• Ability to Pay. Defendants have the financial capacity to pay the assessed penalty. TMC is a publicly traded company with FY2023 revenue of approximately US$3.56 billion. The quarterly installment payment schedule balances the deterrent effect of the penalty with Defendants' need to simultaneously fund substantial remediation obligations.
• Other Relevant Factors. The penalty accounts for Defendants' cooperation in the negotiation process and their commitment to the comprehensive remediation program established by the Decree.
The $31.5 million penalty is consistent with penalties assessed in comparable multi-site environmental enforcement actions and is sufficient to serve both the specific and general deterrent purposes of the applicable statutes.
3. EPA Past Costs Are Fully Reimbursed. The $18.1 million in past-cost reimbursement fully compensates EPA for its documented response costs at the Ridgecrest and Kanawha Bend sites. The $14.3 million for Ridgecrest removal actions reflects the actual costs incurred by EPA between 2021 and 2023, including the installation and operation of a temporary water treatment system, the repair of a compromised diversion channel, and the costs of EPA oversight and technical support. The $3.8 million for the Kanawha Bend emergency response reflects the actual costs incurred by EPA in responding to the June 14, 2020 sulfuric acid release to a tributary of the Kanawha River, including emergency containment, neutralization, and environmental monitoring. The cost documentation has been provided to Defendants and has been accepted as part of the Decree negotiations.
4. SEPs Provide Meaningful Environmental Benefits. The three supplemental environmental projects totaling $12.0 million have a direct nexus to the violations alleged in this action and will provide meaningful, concrete environmental and public health benefits to the communities most affected by Defendants' operations.
The Flint Creek Watershed Restoration Project ($5.5 million) directly addresses the watershed that has been degraded by decades of acid mine drainage and tailings seepage from the Ridgecrest Mine. The stream-bank stabilization, riparian replanting, and fish-passage improvements along twelve miles of Flint Creek will provide lasting ecological benefits to a high-quality trout stream and important recreational resource.
The Battle Mountain Community Drinking Water Improvement Project ($3.5 million) benefits the community nearest to the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine by upgrading the municipal water treatment facility to address drinking water quality concerns that have been exacerbated by regional mining activity.
The Institute Community Air Quality Monitoring Network ($3.0 million) addresses the longstanding concerns of the community surrounding the Kanawha Bend Chemical Plant by providing real-time, publicly accessible air quality monitoring data from six strategically located monitoring stations.
Each SEP is subject to enforceable milestones, reporting requirements, and verification by the independent monitor. The SEPs were selected and designed in accordance with EPA's Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy and satisfy all applicable nexus and community-benefit requirements.
5. Financial Assurance Ensures Performance. The $245.0 million in financial assurance provides a robust guarantee that the required remediation will be completed even in the event of Defendants' inability or unwillingness to perform. The financial assurance package consists of a $165.0 million surety bond issued by Ironbark Surety of America, Inc. — a creditworthy surety with an A.M. Best financial strength rating of A+ (Superior) — and an $80.0 million remediation trust fund at Larchfield Trust Company, N.A., with an initial deposit of $80.0 million.
The total financial assurance of $245.0 million closely approximates the NPV of the total remediation obligations ($245.1 million at a 3% discount rate), ensuring that the full estimated cost of remediation is secured. Annual adjustment mechanisms built into both the surety bond and the trust agreement ensure that the financial assurance remains adequate over the multi-decade life of the Decree, accounting for changes in estimated remediation costs, inflation, and the completion of remediation milestones.
6. Independent Monitor Ensures Accountability. The appointment of Verdant Analytics, Inc. as independent monitor provides a layer of accountability and transparency that serves both the interests of the parties and the public interest. The monitor's quarterly audit authority ensures that compliance with the Decree is assessed on a regular and systematic basis, and the annual public reports provide transparency to affected communities, regulators, and other stakeholders. The selection of Verdant Analytics was the product of a joint process involving EPA and Defendants, and Dr. Kamal Osei's extensive experience in environmental compliance auditing and remediation oversight ensures that the monitor possesses the technical qualifications necessary to fulfill the role effectively.
7. Stipulated Penalties Incentivize Compliance. The escalating stipulated penalty structure — $1,500 per day per violation for the first thirty days, $3,000 per day per violation for days thirty-one through sixty, and $5,500 per day per violation thereafter — provides a meaningful and progressively intensifying economic incentive for timely compliance with all Decree obligations. The penalty rates are consistent with those in comparable environmental consent decrees and are calibrated to ensure that noncompliance is significantly more costly than compliance. The requirement that stipulated penalties be deposited into an escrow account pending dispute resolution ensures that the penalties serve their intended deterrent function while preserving Defendants' right to contest the assessment through the Decree's dispute-resolution mechanism.
C. Consistency with Statutory Objectives
1. Clean Water Act. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of the Clean Water Act, which are "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The Decree eliminates the unpermitted discharges at the Ridgecrest, Gallatin, and Bonanza Creek sites by requiring comprehensive remediation, including the construction and operation of water treatment systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable water quality standards. At the Ridgecrest site, the Decree's remediation program will restore water quality in Flint Creek, a valuable trout stream and tributary of the Clark Fork River. At the Bonanza Creek site, the liner repair and containment program will prevent future releases of cyanide- and mercury-bearing process solution to the ephemeral tributary of the Reese River. The civil penalties assessed under the Decree serve the CWA's deterrent function by imposing significant financial consequences for Defendants' violations.
2. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of RCRA, which include ensuring "that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a manner which protects human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b). The Decree requires comprehensive corrective action at all four sites, addresses the unpermitted storage and treatment of hazardous waste, and brings Defendants into full RCRA compliance through enforceable milestones and performance standards. At the Gallatin site, the Decree requires corrective action at all three SWMUs and remediation of CS₂ groundwater contamination. At the Kanawha Bend site, the Decree requires closure of the former surface impoundment and treatment of the DNAPL plume in the fractured bedrock aquifer. The Decree's corrective action requirements are consistent with the RCRA corrective action program and with EPA's guidance on the selection and implementation of corrective measures.
3. CERCLA. The Consent Decree is consistent with the objectives of CERCLA, which include ensuring "that those responsible for any damage, environmental harm, or injury from [releases of hazardous substances] bear the costs of their actions." S. Rep. No. 96-848, at 13 (1980). The Decree provides full reimbursement of EPA's past costs ($18.1 million) at the Ridgecrest and Kanawha Bend sites, and establishes a comprehensive framework for long-term remediation at the Ridgecrest site consistent with CERCLA's remedial objectives and the National Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The financial assurance provisions ensure that funds will be available to complete the remediation even in the event of Defendants' inability to perform, consistent with CERCLA's mandate that responsible parties bear the costs of cleanup.
4. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Consent Decree addresses the seventeen documented avian mortalities that occurred at the Bonanza Creek Gold Mine's solution ponds between 2021 and 2023, in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Decree's remediation program at the Bonanza Creek site includes the installation of wildlife deterrent systems — specifically, solution-pond netting and hazing devices — designed to prevent birds and other wildlife from coming into contact with toxic process solutions. These measures are consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidelines for preventing avian mortalities at mining operations and will provide ongoing protection for migratory birds in the Bonanza Creek area.
VII. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Overview. As described above, the proposed Consent Decree was lodged with this Court on February 19, 2025, and a notice inviting public comment was published in the Federal Register on or about the same date. See 90 Fed. Reg. _ (Feb. 19, 2025). The thirty-day public comment period closed on March 21, 2025. During the comment period, the United States received fourteen comments from a range of interested parties, including individual citizens, community organizations, environmental advocacy groups, local government representatives, and industry stakeholders. The United States has carefully reviewed each comment and provides its responses to the substantive comments below.
The United States appreciates the public's engagement with this important enforcement matter and recognizes the significant interest that affected communities have in ensuring that the Consent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

III. BACKGROUND

IV. TERMS OF THE CONSENT DECREE

V. LEGAL STANDARD FOR ENTRY OF A CONSENT DECREE

VII. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts