Bitterroot River Protection Association

08/31/2026

Public Meeting on Sheep Creek Mine packs the PAC
https://bitterrootfreepress.substack.com/p/public-meeting-on-sheep-creek-mine

08/19/2026

Summation of water quality monitoring efforts related to the Sheep Creek Mine
The Bitterroot River Health Check program began conducting its own baseline water quality study related to the Sheep Creek Mine Exploration Project in the fall of 2024 and it is ongoing.
WHY IS IT BEING DONE?
It is being done because establishing the condition of the surface water in the project area is crucial in determining the extent and degree of any degradation that may occur as the project is progressing. It is one of the best ways to document one of the most valuable resources at risk.Several organizations – international, national, regional and local – were contacted about how best to proceed. Virtually everyone consulted suggested that getting some baseline data on the present conditions should probably be a top priority.
The agencies involved, the Forest Service and Montana DEQ, are not going to do any monitoring. At best they will require the company to do it. But it was recognized early on, that if the company is granted a Categorical Exclusion or if DEQ accepts a Small Miners Exemption application, which is what the company was stating they intended to do at the time, no environmental assessment would be required and possibly no monitoring. But the fact is that even if they are required to do it, we cannot afford to trust this company to monitor themselves. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and intent on avoiding any environmental analysis on either the state or federal level.
WHAT IS BEING DONE?
Four sites were established in the fall of 2024, above, within and below the project area. A fifth site was added at the top end of Painted Rocks Reservoir this year. The monitoring continues and additional sites are being planned now that the company has disclosed the location of its excavation and drilling activities. The data being collected includes physical parameters, nutrients and a long list of metals and rare earth elements.
WHO IS DOING IT?
The work is being conducted by the Bitterroot River Health Check program which has established an extensive network of 27 monitoring stations across the watershed and is headquartered at the Bitterroot College. Partners include the Forest Service, Montana DEQ, Bitterroot Conservation District, UM Watershed Health Clinic, Montana Watershed Coordination Council, Clark Fork Coalition, Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association, Friends of the Bitterroot, Bitterrooters for Planning and the Bitterroot River Protection Association.
The Bitterroot River Health Check program is an all-volunteer “citizen science” based cooperative that offers free training in water quality sampling protocols to all its volunteers. For more information about the monitoring project or if you are interested in volunteering contact Michael Howell at [email protected] or call (406)239-4838

Call now to connect with business.

07/16/2026

https://bitterrootfreepress.substack.com/p/bitterroot-river-protection-association

The Bitterroot National Forest is still accepting comments on the new Plan of Operation. Comments may be submitted to: [email protected]

06/29/2026

According to a recent study, the Upper West Fork of the Bitterroot River may arguably be considered one of the worst places in the whole state of Montana to install a new mine as it would without a doubt endanger one of the states most valuable fisheries.

06/01/2026

Update on pollution in the Bitterroot

Existing dioxin and lead contamination in the Bitterroot River

06/01/2026

Federal Permitting Council's proposed FAST-41 MOU with DEQ

Agreement would align project's state and federal permitting timelines under FAST-41 process; could put state environmental safeguards in jeopardy

05/13/2026

A CANDIDATE FORUM focused on Sheep Creek Mine
the following story was published in the Bitterroot Free Press:

Political candidates weigh in on Sheep Creek Mine
By Michael Howell
Representative David Bedey (R-HD 86, and candidate for Senate District 43), told a crowd of people at the Ravalli County Fairgrounds on Thursday, May 5 that the Bitterroot National Forest had received a new Plan of Operation for the Sheep Creek Mine from claim owner US Critical Materials. Bedey said the new plan is under review but has not yet been released for public comment.
He also stated that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality expected to receive an application for a License to Explore in the coming week. Upon inquiry by the Bitterroot Free Press, DEQ Public Information Officer Madison McGeffers acknowledged that DEQ participated in a virtual meeting with representatives of US Critical Materials on Wednesday, April 29, 2026. During the meeting, US Critical Materials described the revised plan they recently submitted to the US Forest Service and inquired about the application process for the DEQ Exploration License Program. As of Thursday, May 7, DEQ had not received an application.
The company submitted an initial plan of operation to the Forest Service on December 5, 2025 that included enlargement and restoration of three existing mining adits and one new one along with excavation of a mile of tunnels and extraction of up to 10,000 tons of ore. That plan was put on the federal government’s Fast-41 Permitting Dashboard. A public meeting on that submission drew close to 700 people and several dozen spoke, all in opposition to the mine. The only two people to speak in favor were representatives of the mine.
The Ravalli County Commissioners issued a letter to Montana’s Congressional delegation and the governor, asking that the mine proposal be removed from the Fast-41 Dashboard and asked that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted. The Forest Service received over 60 comments to the proposed plan, including one signed by a group of 20 local, state, regional and national non-profit organizations, criticizing the plan and expressing strong opposition.
US Critical Materials never contacted the DEQ and, following some deliberations with Forest officials, withdrew its plan. The project remains on the federal government’s Fast-41 list but has fallen behind the timelines in the published schedule. They also claimed to be opening a local office and engaging the community but as of yet have not done so.
According to Bedey, these new submissions could lead to a decision by the Forest Service that there will be no significant impacts from the proposal. He said, "I doubt that will happen, so we'll likely see a full EIS, which is a rigorous process."
He said that DEQ has received a request from the federal Permitting Council that is sponsoring the Fast-41 Dashboard asking DEQ to enter into an Memorandum of Understanding with them to “align state and federal permitting timelines and enhance efficiency by improving coordination and transparency and accountability.”
“I’m not sure what that exactly means,” said Bedey, “but it certainly doesn’t mean in DEQ’s view of this that there is going to be any shortening of the requirement to provide a thorough EIS.” He said as it stands DEQ has taken this proposal under consideration but has not made any decision as to whether they would enter into this relationship with the federal government.
Bedey went on to offer a few possible state legislative actions that could help stop this mine. One was to enhance state bonding requirements. Currently, he said, Montana’s bonding requirements are based on the need to reclaim the site itself and don’t take into consideration any off-site effects such as contamination of the river.
“It’s difficult for me to imagine this mine not having catastrophic effects on the Bitterroot River and everyone downstream,” he said. He suggested that enhancing the bond requirements to cover off-site risks should be looked at. “It’s difficult for me to see how that bond could be affordable by any mining interests.” Additionally, he said, another thing hampering DEQ in state statutes is the allowable reasons required for denying a permit request. He said the current interpretation of the law is that off-site effects are not allowable reasons to deny a permit
“We should rectify that in the statute,” said Bedey.
According to Bedey, it is all doable but it will take a lot of homework and bringing all the stakeholders to the table. He said he was already talking to Trout Unlimited and that the Montana Mining Association has an interest in responsible mining.
“I’m not anti-mining and I’m pro-environment,” he said. “I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive. I think if we do our job and bring the right people to the table and pursue some of these legislative ideas, we will be able to protect the Bitterroot River in particular but also create a responsible regime for mining interests across the state that protects the environment and yet does not destroy the mining industry.”

Phil Ramsey
Photo by Michael Howell
Guest speaker at the event Phillip Ramsey, scientist and manager of the MPG Ranch, who along with his wife Bonnie initiated the “Don’t Pollute the ‘Root!” campaign, asked if there were any execs from US Critical Materials present. After a moment of silence, he said, “It’s sort of like looking for a Yeti.”
Ramsey, who worked for years on the restoration of the upper Clark Fork River, said, “Restoring mine-damaged rivers is slow and incredibly expensive.” He noted that 11 of the 12 mines in Montana permitted since 1980 caused unexpected water problems.
“Mining companies actually plan for disasters carefully,” said Ramsey. “They set up shell companies and hide their identities and assets, and run back to Vancouver when things go wrong. This has happened again and again.” He said Sheep Creek carries more risk than most places. It’s steep, cold, with deep snow in winter and is situated in a narrow valley leaving no room for error, and containment errors will quickly move downstream.
“What will go wrong?” said Ramsey. “Who knows? But without some sort of bonding reform the companies won’t pay for it.”
He pointed to promising efforts to reclaim rare earth metals from the Butte mine and noted that the metals could also be recovered from coal ash and from the 8,000 abandoned mines in the state.
“The right mines of the future will process waste from the past,” he said. “But if we can get what we need from mine wastes, why are all these foreign companies digging around in our national forests?” He said the answer is that our current laws point companies in the wrong direction and keep responsible miners out.
Ramsey said that Superfund laws need to be reformed. “In the case of hard rock mining it creates perverse incentives.” He said a company that wants to open an abandoned mine to reclaim metals from the waste inherits the liability for problems they didn’t create and this can include millions of dollars in bonding gaps where the cost of rehabilitation outstrips the amount of bonds.
“Our laws make it more attractive to develop in pristine public lands than to recover metals from waste dumps,” said Ramsey. “That’s a policy failure. To fix it we must have laws that favor re-using waste mines first, re-opening old mines second, and opening new mines upstream from flourishing recreational and agricultural economies dead last.”
All the candidates present running for local and state offices expressed opposition to the mine at the meeting.
Evan Schroedel, a Democrat running for HD 88, said, “I doubt that there will be a lot of questions for me from this room because I am vehemently opposed to this Sheep Creek Mine.” His remark drew a round of applause. He said, “As legislators and representatives we need to shore up restrictions on the DEQ. That’s the only way this state can control some of this rampant misuse of property for mining.”
Archie Thomas, who filed as a Democrat for HD 86 but calls himself a “Rino-crat,” said “payola” was the biggest problem we face. He said if it wasn’t for payola from the Defense Department we wouldn’t have this problem here with Sheep Creek.
He said the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency had hamstrung the Forest Service and the Environmental Protection Agency with funding cuts and layoffs.
“When we go through this process, which we all assume is going to be a valid process, how is that going to work with the Forest Service that’s gutted out?” said Thomas. “How is that going to work when we take it to the EPA that’s gutted out?”
He suggested that establishing some sort of Water Quality District or water source improvement district in the upper West Fork might be one way to proceed.
Bill Jones, a Democrat running for HD 87, said that Japan had discovered an incredible source of rare earth elements in the sea bed that would put small operations like the Sheep Creek mine out of business. “Then we would be looking at bankruptcy issues and that’s a classic in mining industries,” he said.
He said the Forest Service is stuck by the 1872 Mining Law and, “whatever they need they are going to get it. They have to be conquered economically.” One way, he said, is creating small hurdles. He pointed to the lack of electrical power in the area and the need to use county roads which could cost plenty if they were required to “beef them up.”
Rep. Kathy Love (R-HD 85), who is running against Bedey for SD 43 in the primary, said, “I think a big issue is the water issue.” The company claimed in their initial plan to have a zero-water use operation,” but Love was skeptical. “You can’t tell me that mine is not going to use a lot of water,” she said. “They also said it was only going to be 3 to 5 acres but now it’s up to 5,000 to 7,000 acres. So I don’t trust anything that they’ve said… It’s not just the river, it’s everybody’s livelihood. We need to do an EIS and we need to fight this.”
Kim Dailey, a Republican running for HD 85, said she’s knocked on a lot of doors and “many people have told me, we do not want the Sheep Creek Mine.” She listed her concerns, such as transparency and the use of shell companies, the use of local roads that local taxpayers pay for and the water that the whole valley relies on. She said experimental mining had uncertainties and the headwaters of a river was no place to be experimenting. She said the increased acres being affected, now over 7,000 acres, was concerning, as well as the small number of jobs being produced, a good portion of which may not be to local residents.
“I support mining in general but there are simply too many risks associated with the Sheep Creek Mine and I do not support it,” said Dailey.
Michelle Binkley, a Republican candidate for HD 85, said “Without you we have nothing. We cannot become complacent. We can’t sit back and say we’ve heard it all before and I know what I think and they are going to do what they want anyway. While it is true that they will do what they want anyway, we need to be as loud as we can.” She said there are 150 state legislators in Montana and the bulk of them come from Kalispell, Missoula, Bozeman and Helena and we have to work with them to get legislation passed. “We need to be vocal and we need to show up,” said Binkley.
Sheriff Steve Holton, up for re-election, said he had not heard a single proposal or idea or any communication on how to provide public safety at that end of the valley. “My guess,” he said, “is it’s probably a $500,000 a year hit to the county to provide what is going to be necessary there. I’m not going to support a public safety levy so that everybody here has to pay that bill.”
Matthew Roth, running as a Republican for County Commissioner, said that he could help slow the process down. He said he could go to Helena and through partnerships help make laws. He advocated reclaiming metals at the Butte mine and from abandoned mines, saying there was no need for new mines.
“As far as the Sheep Creek Mine, I think everything we are doing right now is the right thing,” said Roth. “We are slowing that process down. We’ve got to do everything we can to see that our water, our headwaters, stay clean for our valley, but I think that there are opportunities greater than the Sheep Creek Mine that can help the state of Montana.” He said as a commissioner he could influence his partners in Helena legislative matters. “I am completely against the Sheep Creek Mine. Why would we do that when we have thousands of mines in our state that we can be using for those resources?”
The only Congressional candidate to show up at the meeting was Seth Bodnar, running as an Independent.
“I believe your representatives at the federal level should have only one boss and it’s you, not party elites and not outside businesses, you,” said Bodnar. He said the Sheep Creek Mine was a non-partisan issue and there is a lot that we, as Americans, can agree on.
“We can agree about the importance of national security,” said Bodnar. “We can agree that the U.S. should have its own source of critical minerals. The thing is that we have plenty of critical minerals in this country and we don’t have to risk the Bitterroot and the people here in this valley, and the national treasures of our state. We can also agree on the importance of jobs, but you don’t have to be anti-business to be pro-environment. Another thing we can agree on is we all have an important role as stewards of the natural treasures of the state.”
The candidate forum was sponsored by the organization Save the American West and hosted by the founder Tony Hudson. He blasted the dark money that was pouring into Montana and said it could end up influencing what happens with the Sheep Creek Mine. He pointed specifically to Americans for Prosperity. He said the organization was backed by the billionaire Koch brothers who have spent $345 million lobbying in 2024 and spent $400 million on the rare earth industry and has a campaign based on how to expedite permits. He cautioned against voting for anyone who is being endorsed by Americans for Prosperity.
“I can tell you, if you vote for an AFP candidate, AFP has got their hooks into them a little bit,” said Hudson. “I’m not saying they own them, but I’m telling you, these people are powerful.”
Hudson went on to laud the reclamation efforts going on at the mine in Butte and the realistic potential of producing precious metals from legacy mines in volumes that can meet or exceed our industrial demand “while simultaneously addressing one of the largest unsolved environmental challenges of our time.”
“I keep hearing about mining somewhere else,” said Hudson. “These mines are going to keep popping up in the headwaters of American rivers. And I don’t care if it’s in my community or the community down the road, putting Thorium 232 waste in the headwaters of American rivers that has a 14 billion year half-life… I’m done with it. It’s not going to happen. We can stop this. We can all get together and stop this.”

03/16/2026

The importance of doing water quality monitoring in the vicinity of the proposed Sheep Creek Mine INDEPENDENTLY of any monitoring by US Critical Materials/Forest Service cannot be over stated. Please support BRPA's monitoring project in the headwaters of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River.

The U.S. Forest Service said it plans to approve South32’s Hermosa project in Patagonia, Arizona, despite the water problems the mine is already causing.

03/12/2026

BRPA's response to the Sheep Creek Mine Plan of Operation:

Dear Ranger Pliley,

The Bitterroot River Protection Association (BRPA) wants to thank you for allowing comment on the record concerning the Draft Plan of Operation for the Sheep Creek Project USFS Submittal Exploration and Bulk Sampling which was submitted by US Critical Materials to do exploratory mining in the headwaters of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River. We realize that you are only in the initial stages of the process and that the plan may change, perhaps substantially, prior to being deemed complete and triggering a public review process under NEPA which will allow a limited period for official public comment. However, this Draft Plan is so glaringly deficient in providing even the most basic information required for proper review we believe that submitting comments at this time may be of some help to the Forest Service in arriving at a Final Plan of Operation that has enough information that your agency and the public can make an informed decision about the proposal.

BRPA was formed over a quarter of a century ago with the general aim of preserving and protecting the Bitterroot River watershed. As part of that effort in 2017 we instituted the Bitterroot River Health Check program a citizen science based cooperative headquartered at the Bitterroot College UM. In cooperation with Montana DEQ, the Bitterroot National Forest, the UM Watershed Health Clinic, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council, Montana Trout Unlimited Bitterroot Chapter, the Clark Fork Coalition, Bitterrooters for Planning, Friends of the Bitterroot, the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association, BRPA has led a team of two dozen volunteers annually in water quality monitoring across the Bitterroot River watershed establishing seven permanent monitoring stations on the mainstem of the river and on 15 tributaries over the last eight years. We have an intense interest in protecting and preserving the water quality and quantity in the entire Bitterroot River watershed and are very concerned about the potential negative impacts that a Rare Earth Element mine in the headwaters of the West Fork present to the river and to the entire community. Potential negative impacts of this proposed mine on water quality and quantity in the watershed are enormous and deserve a good hard look.

BASELINE MONITORING

In our discussions with the Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor during the scoping meetings for the Bitterroot Front Project it was agreed, based on consultation with the Forest service hydrologist at the time, the elementary basics of any large ground disturbing activity on the forest required establishing a baseline for the environmental conditions, especially the water, prior to any ground disturbing activity; continued monitoring during the project activity and follow-up monitoring following completion of the project. We presume that these simple and undisputed requirements apply to the proposed REE mine in the headwaters of the West Fork.

We would expect that the baseline monitoring appropriate for this project in terms of the water alone would include at a minimum:

• _Baseline information on potentially impacted water resources, including local geology and hydrology;
• _Baseline characteristics of potentially impacted surface waters, groundwater, seeps and springs;
• _Geotechnical information related to potential dewatering impacts related to exploration activities;
• _Assessment of the quantity and quality of groundwater that is likely to be produced by mining or exploration activities;
• _Information on planned consumptive (or non-consumptive) water use;
• _Information on water rights owned or required for water use from local surface or groundwaters;
• _Baseline water quality data (nutrients, sediments, metals, REEs, etc…), including applicable water quality standards and how those standards will be met;
• _Baseline information on water temperature and how existing temperatures will be maintained;
• _A plan for stormwater management both as a result of exploration and/or onsite waste rock storage;
• _Baseline information on potentially impacted aquatic life, fisheries (populations and habitat), and/or sensitive or protected species such as ESA-listed bull trout and native Westslope cutthroat trout; and macro-invertebrates.
• _Information related to the potential direct or incidental discharge of pollutants to groundwater or surface waters or the required discharge permits;
• _Information necessary to assess the feasibility of the suggested “zero discharge” processing system, including what processing steps will be conducted on site, what water treatment steps will be required to re-use process water, and any plan for the disposal of solids or other contaminants removed from process;
• _Any plan for wastewater treatment and discharge if excess groundwater or process water requires disposal; or
• _Information related to water monitoring efforts required to ensure compliance with applicable standards and evaluate ongoing impacts to water quantity and quality.

Especially significant is the need to do preliminary testing for the presence of asbestos due to the presence of fibrous actinolite. The Forest Service must require site-specific asbestos characterization, fiber-release potential analyses, and enforceable exposure controls before authorizing any activities that could disturb actinolite-bearing formations.

WASTE ROCK

Although the company told the public and the County Commissioners just two weeks before submitting this plan that no chemicals would be used in the process, the plan actually includes a large amount of explosives and fuel to be stored on the site.

Mine exploration and excavation, particularly using conventional explosives, often result in significant environmental contamination, leaking toxins like TNT, RDX, heavy metals, nitrates and ammonia, into soil and groundwater.

It appears that the Plan involves leaving a large quantity of its muck and waste rock in the mine shafts (drifts and vaults) and entrance ways (portals).

“Waste rock or blasted rock that does not contain recoverable minerals will be utilized as internal fill within the adit to fill voids and further production. Any waste material that is produced that cannot be utilized as internal fill will be used to build up the portal pad locations shown on the site map.” (pg. 12 of Plan)

“Muckers are used to transport blasted rock and materials underground for removal to the surface or for placement of waste rock into areas of the site as part of the exploration process.” (pg. 19 of Plan)

A number of mining methods are discussed-

In discussion of the resue method it is mentioned that “Once the drift has been driven (advanced) to the desired length, the waste contained in the back (roof) will be selectively blasted and left in place to provide the base for the next “lift” or level of the section of ore body. This allows the ore vein to be selectively removed while using the blasted waste rock as a road base for sequential sampling.” (pg. 26 of the Plan)

In discussion of the Long Hole Extraction method it is mentioned that “This is still considered a selective exploration method where the focus is on taking the ore and waste separately to improve ore grade. This method requires an excavation shape similar to the resue method, however instead of extracting one level upon the next, the levels are separated by a pre-determined distance.” “This ore is then blasted and retrieved via a remote mucker pictured at the bottom center of the image. Once the ore has been removed, waste can then be hauled back in to fill the void left by the removal of the ore…” (pg 27 of the Plan)

In discussion of the Overhand Ramp and Fill Method it is mentioned that “This method is similar to Resue and in that it relies on the placement of waste rock back into the excavated heading to continue the extraction sequence. A drift (tunnel) is driven on the ore body shown here on the bottom of the image. In this bottom image, the first drive has taken place, and waste has been placed back into that void to allow for the exploration of subsequent levels or lifts. As seen in the upper portion of the image, this process is repeated until the angle of the attack ramp becomes too steep to safely navigate. This allows for multiple cuts (lifts or levels) to take place from a single access point. (pg. 28 of the Plan).

Although the plan’s methods call for separating and removing the “highest grade material” separate from the waste it is unreasonable to suppose that the waste will not contain low to medium grades of the target material as well as significant amounts of explosive residue including TNT, RDX, heavy metals, nitrates and ammonia.

Because waste rock and low/medium grade ore produced in this process is being produced from an area with sulfide mineralization, geochemical testing of each rock type that will be encountered is necessary to determine the likelihood that dissolved metals could be produced when the waste rock/sub-grade ore is exposed to air and water. However, no geochemical characterization data was provided in the Plan. [see attached letter from David Chambers at the Center of Science in Public Participation]

In addition to checking the waste material for concentration levels of mercury, selenium, lead and other heavy metals, it also needs to be tested for concentration levels of rare earth elements. This information is necessary in determining the health risks associated with the waste rock.

The company states, “The deposits are also unique due to low levels of thorium, which potentially allows for mining with minimal environmental impact. The levels of thorium averaged 200ppm, which is significantly below the 500-ppm permitting threshold established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a U.S. government agency.”

It is not clear how they arrived at this average estimation. Since the Plan calls for separating the highest grade ore from lower grade ore and waste rock clarification is needed. Is it the high grade ore alone that averages 200 ppm? Or was that average based on the total amount of waste rock and lower grade ore as well? If it’s the latter, then the high grade ore that is being stored separately and shipped separately could have a significantly higher average amount of Thorium and in fact trigger the involvement of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency.

Regardless of the answer to that question, the real question is not whether that agency will be involved due to the level of Thorium. The real question is the level of health risks associated with the materials as a whole including waste rock, low and medium grade ore, being stored in the mine, on site or used elsewhere; as well as the high grade ore being transported to the lab.

The state of Montana and the U. S. Forest Service could benefit greatly, we believe, in looking at what other countries in the world can offer in terms of providing adequate protection for human health and the environment posed by the extraction of Rare Earth Elements.

EURA, a project funded by the European Commission for the 'Development of a sustainable exploitation scheme for Europe's Rare Earth ore deposits' has published an internal guidance report on “Health and safety issues in REE mining and processing” intended for internal guidance within the EURARE project on health and safety issues in the mining and processing of REE ores.

This involved developing methods in all parts of the production chain, i.e. exploration, mining, ore beneficiation, extraction of REEs from ore concentrates, isolation of the individual REEs and the production of REE metals and alloys. The report describes on a country-by-country basis how “REE mining and production have led to some significant environmental and health impacts.” In Brazil, China, India, Malasia and the United States.

According EURA’s health and safety issue report, it should act both as a project baseline and as a guide to ensure the health and safety of all people involved.

Due to the radionuclide content of some of the EURARE ores, consisting of natural uranium and/or thorium and their decay chains, the report addresses radiation protection issues.

On page six in introductory remarks they note that “The rare earth elements (REE) are a group of metals comprised of yttrium (Y), the fourteen lanthanide elements, i.e. lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium(Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), and lutetium (Lu), and sometimes scandium (Sc).”

The Sheep Creek Mine deposit contains many of these REEs some of them specifically referenced as targets by US Critical Materials. In a press release (Newswires July 27, 2022) the company noted that “The key property elements include neodymium and praseodymium. The project also includes cerium, dysprosium, europium, gadolinium, lanthanum, niobium, scandium, strontium, samarium, and gallium.”

If US Critical Materials and the Bitterroot National Forest intend to mine REEs in the headwaters of the Bitterroot River it is imperative that they conduct an Environmental Risk Assessment.

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) examines processes, emissions, the spread of contaminants and exposures to humans and biota. ERA is a systematic procedure for predicting potential risks to human health or the environment. A complete ERA process includes both ecological and human health risk assessments and the preceding assessment of hazards and the related exposure concentrations. A model for this type of assessment has been developed.

The MINERA project (Improving environmental risk assessments for metal mines) was carried out in collaboration between the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), the National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL) and the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) during 2010–2013. The Minera-project developed the general model for environmental risk assessment for a metal mine site. The Minera-model consists of both, ecological and health risk assessments that are preceded by an examination of the mining processes, emissions, the transport of contaminants and the resulting concentrations in the surrounding media (Kauppila et al. 2013, Figure 2-1).

https://www.eurare.org/docs/internalGuidanceReport.pdf?ref=hir.harvard.edu

There is an international radioactive waste classification scheme and a safety guide defining six levels of risk ranging from Exempt waste to High Level waste. What level of waste is expected from the Sheep Creek Mine?

There are occupational health and safety issues with rare earths (Rim et al. 2013). What is US Critical Materials’ plan for protecting workers? Is the proposed ventilation system adequate with respect to all the elements involved?

Elevated concentrations of REEs may also cause toxic reactions and negative effect on plants (Tyler 2004). How is dust, which may impact surrounding soils and vegetation being controlled at the adit pads and at the loading site near the bottom of Sheep Creek where ore and mine waste will be stored prior to loading for off-site transportation?

It is necessary to determine the concentration levels for all the individual metals and REEs in the deposit to make any reasonable determination of the health risks involved at every stage of this project; as well as a detailed plan for handling them throughout the process from tunneling, to extraction, and to delivery either to the lab or to undisclosed construction sites or off-site storage areas.

WATER

The huge amount of fractured waste rock and muck that is proposed to be stored indefinitely within the mine, combined with the predicted groundwater inflow presents a very significant potential for contamination of groundwater in the area. The likelihood that dissolved metals could be produced is dramatically increased when the waste rock is exposed to air and water.

The Plan assumes that there will be groundwater inflow and aims to use it to fill a 15,000 gallon holding tank for use in the mining process. The Plan states that the mining exploration will operate on a zero-discharge basis by recycling and “clarifying” the water contained in the reservoir. Once the reservoir is full it seems that the initial inflow would have to cease or be diverted. To divert it without a provisional MPDES permit any discharge would automatically be a violation of Montana water quality regulations. It should be acknowledged in the Plan that a situation where more water than could be utilized and/or temporarily stored could be encountered, and a contingency plan for treating and discharging excess water discussed.

The Plan suggests that the excess inflow would be addressed by grouting the area to stop the leakage. This is a dubious solution in a tunnel system over a mile long with dozens of side vaults. It is unreasonable to depend on grouting to stop the inflow of water into the mine workings. If by some miracle they would be able to stop it they would then have to account for how they would replenish the holding reservoir as some loss of water in the mining process is inevitable.

Seepage and drainage collection must be carefully planned, and the chemical nature of the water that comes into contact with the waste rock must be characterized. Waste rock taken adjacent to the ore zone will contain virtually all of the metal contaminants contained in the ore, but not enough of the target metal to justify processing as ore. Waste rock produced from driving access tunnels away from the ore zone must still be tested to determine whether any sulfide minerals are present, even though this rock is not directly adjacent to the ore.

The Plan does not contain any information about the total quantity of water that will be required for the proposed mining operation and associated road construction and other dust abatement activities.

The only estimation of water use is the 15,000 gallons of groundwater inflow that will be captured for a closed-loop recycling operation for the mining process and no provision for treating excess water once the holding reservoir is filled has been proposed except for grouting any leaks which is a dubious remedy in a combined length of over a mile of tunnels including dozens of side vaults.

There is no discussion about the inevitable loss of some water during the mining process or the amount required for dust abatement in the new road construction and use which will also be lost. That they anticipate the need for more water than what the reservoir can hold is plainly stated in the Plan: “If additional process water is required, a source such as Sheep Creek, or the West Fork of the Bitterroot River to supplement activities underground would be needed.” (pg. 13 of the Plan)

There is no indication whether they have the right to take it from Sheep Creek or the West Fork of the river in a basin that is closed to any further surface water rights. Neither do they discuss the potential impacts to downstream irrigators if they do somehow succeed in taking water out of Sheep Creek and the West Fork of the river.

The potential impacts on Painted Rocks Reservoir, the potential contamination to the water and soils behind the dam have not been examined. This reservoir supports irrigation and helps make the West Fork fishery a trout stronghold by adding cold water from the reservoir to the late season warmed river water. Pollution of Painted Rocks would be a big risk to existing locally owned, proven-sustainable, fishing industry as well as local irrigated agriculture. Milltown dam, east of Missoula, demonstrated the unfortunate role of acting as a tailings impoundment for both decades-long chronic mining-derived water pollution as well as a backup for catastrophic pollution when the Mike Horse mine tailings dam
failed. The values at risk at Painted Rocks deserve special consideration early in the planning process. The Agency must analyze the impacts the mine will have on all aspects of the Bitterroot River fisheries including economic values, water quality, impacts to agriculture, tourism, and habitat degradation and must further demonstrate compliance with all state and federal standards relating to these factors.

The Forest Service and the public need much more information to assess the feasibility of the suggested “zero discharge” processing system, including what processing steps that will be conducted on site, what water treatment steps will be required to re-use process water, and any plan for the disposal of solids or other contaminants accumulating in the holding tank and potentially removed from the process

Hydrological analysis and predictions of the amount of “contact” water that will be generated from the surface area required for the mine workings, temporary waste rock storage pad, permanent waste rock disposal, and whether any seepage might occur from the new underground workings, should be included in the proposed Plan. A contingency plan to treat excess water should be developed, and the funding required to execute this plan disclosed. The amount of water to be used in dust abatement in every aspect of the operation including the access roads should be disclosed.

Also related to water, the Plan contains insufficient information about estimated stormwater and any stormwater management system for the site. Stormwater forecasting, including 50- and 100-year precipitation (especially rain on snow) events should be included in the Plan, along with how the operation will manage regular and historic stormwater flows. The Plan should provide information on how stormwater may impact adjacent surface water quality and, hence, aquatic life for all seasons and life cycles.

ROADS

The “Roads Development” section of the Plan references clearing and improving both existing USFS roads (5685), as well as historic mining access roads that are, to our knowledge, little more than closed, regenerating road prisms. Any work on historic roads that are not part of the current, maintained Forest road system should have to undergo environmental evaluation as new roads. Regardless of whether it is the improvement or maintenance of old roads or existing FS roads, such as 5685, USCM must provide far more detailed information about the extent of road widening and clearing it deems likely for mine exploration over the full life of the exploration operations.

WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

This proposed activity in the Sheep Creek Drainage requires an Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) not only for the potential impacts on water but also on wildlife and wildlife habitat across the watershed. The area supports critical habitat for several species of concern, including Westslope Cutthroat Trout (the Westfork is a stronghold for native Westslope Cutthroat Trout) and bull trout, which is listed under the Endangered Species Act. A couple of macro-invertebrate species also listed as species of concern, the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog and the Northern Rocky Mountains Refugium Caddisfly have been identified within the mining claim areas.

Many miles of the roads referenced in the Plan are adjacent to the West Fork Bitterroot, Sheep Creek and other tributaries. Thus the potential impacts to riparian habitat should be evaluated, both in terms of loss of riparian cover and potential for sediment transport into any surface water source near roads. Loss of riparian cover or addition of sediment to streams, like the water quality and quantity impacts discussed above, risk negative impacts to aquatic life, fish, and macroinvertebrates.

Other species such as grizzly bears, wolverines, and Canada lynx also roam in or near the proposed mine area, and the project would fragment these identified wildlife corridors. Other species of conservation concern like rocky mountain sheep, elk, mountain goats, and Northern Rockies fisher also inhabit the area. Road construction, drill pads, and other infrastructure could degrade these habitats permanently. The value of this linkage corridor to biodiversity is vital to the survival and continued viability of these species.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND THE ECONOMY

Potential impacts on local government services also need to be examined. The proposed mine will create impacts to the majority of locally provided services including, law enforcement , search and rescue, roads and bridges, wildland fire, volunteer fire department, educational and medical as well as air quality considerations. We believe that the local government, as the elected body representing the U. S. citizens who stand to be most immediately impacted by the proposed activities should have a seat at the table in any decisions made by the U. S. Forest Service regarding the Sheep Creek mine proposal.

Although the company estimates that it may have positive impacts on the economy in terms of a few jobs that may or may not be filled by local residents or existing businesses in the county, the potential negative impacts on the Bitterroot Valley economy as a whole are enormous. The Bitterroot Valley's economy is strongly tied to its natural landscape-from agriculture to recreation (fishing, tourism) to real estate and the large portion of unearned income related to the associated forest and wildland amenities, and any damage to water quality or wildlife and wildlife habitat could impose long-term costs on local businesses and livelihoods. A method and formulas exist to examine these potential impacts. (for example: https://stock.scholars.harvard.edu/sites/g/files/omnuum5911/files/stock/files/snf_withdrawal_ea_stock_and_bradt_aug6_2018.pdf

We strongly urge the agency to require an adequate assessment of these potential negative impacts prior approving any ground disturbing activity.

CULTURE

Pursuant to the Antiquities Act and in consultation with the Salish and Nez Perce tribes, a thorough archeological survey should be completed prior to any ground disturbing activities. We believe the tribes should be consulted concerning every aspect of the proposed activities on the forest.

The project also must comply with all Bitterroot National Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards. In analyzing the project impacts, the Bitterroot National Forest must demonstrate compliance with all applicable goals, objectives and standards.

Thanks for your consideration of our comments,

Michael Howell
Executive Director
Bitterroot River Protection Association