Bitterroot River Protection Association

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

12/30/2025

What they told us and what they plan

12/30/2025

https://bitterrootstar.com/2025/12/plan-of-operations-for-sheep-creek-mine-submitted-to-forest-service/

here’s what US Critical Materials is planning up Sheep Creek

by Michael Howell The Bitterroot National Forest has received a draft initial Plan of Operations for the Sheep Creek project on the West Fork Ranger District. The Forest will assess […]

12/11/2025

Commissioners oppose fast tracking Sheep Creek Mine
By Michael Howell
On Monday December 1, at a standing room only meeting with an estimated 700 Bitterroot valley residents in attendance, the Ravalli County Commissioners unanimously agreed to send letters to Montana’s congressional delegation and Governor Gianforte urging them to help in removing the Sheep Creek Mine project from the federal government’s FAST-41 Transparency list.
At the meeting US Critical Materials representative Scott Osterman began by commenting on the company’s lack of communication with the commissioners and the public to date “but that is simply because we have not had a full understanding of what our operation might be. And so, I have to apologize. But also, now since we signed the FAST-41 agreement on the transparency portal, it’s time for us to tell you what the plan is.”
He said being listed on the FAST-41 list does not change anything. “It doesn’t change NEPA. It doesn’t change any of the other requirements the federal government has to get the permitting through,” he said. He described the project as one focused upon “expanded exploration, not mining.” He said it was previously explored in the 1950s and 1960s.
“The U. S. currently relies heavily on foreign and geopolitically unstable sources of gallium and other critical minerals,” said Osterman, “As a matter of fact 98.7% of gallium comes from China. 100% of samarium? Those minerals are critical for our national defense. Without them, a lot of military equipment will not work.”
Osterman was apparently referring to gallium that has already been refined or processed. China processes most of the world’s Gallium. The U. S. actually obtains ore containing gallium from several sources, mostly from Japan, and sends it to China for processing. According to a U. S. Geological Survey report the U. S. in 2023-2024 obtained 24% of its gallium from Japan, 19% from Germany, 19% from China, 17% from Canada and 21% from other sources. In 2024-2025 China’s supply dropped to 8% and Japan, Germany and others “filled the gap.”
Osterman said his company was advancing exploration at the Sheep Creek site to “give us the true value and extent of the existing minerals and we are committed to doing that exploration in an environmentally safe fashion.” He said the project would create jobs and that the average job in the mining industry earns $85,000 to $130,000 a year. “We have all seen the ebbs and flows of tourism and other industries,” he said, “mining, if it ever gets to that point, is one that is a very stable industry and can continue for many years into the future.”
“Supporting Sheep Creek does not mean abandoning environmentalism and conservationism. The unique nature of Sheep Creek and the geology that’s there allows us to easily support environmental conservation while supporting national security and resource responsibility,” said Osterman.
Osterman said a common misunderstanding was that Sheep Creek would be an open pit mine.
“It cannot be because it is not geologically formed to be an open pit mine. It will be underground,” he said.
With respect to concerns about radioactive contamination he said that the levels at the mine averaged 200 ppm, far below the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s trigger point for regulating materials which is 500 ppm.
As to concerns about water he said, “The mine of the future is far different than the mine of the past. Future mining uses water and recycles it and if water is put back into the environment it is usually cleaner than the water that exists there. We will do everything we can to monitor, to mitigate, and to ensure that nothing ever happens. Now that is not a promise, that’s a commitment. Lots of people can make promises, but we are committed to monitoring environmentally everything that’s going on.”
He said there will be no rare earth or Gallium processing on the site and no chemicals used and that independent testing by the Idaho National Lab has not identified asbestos at the site.
Osterman said that his company was willing to engage the community in what is called a Good Neighbor Agreement in which the company and concerned members of the public work out the details of the operation in a way that everyone would be comfortable with moving forward.
Commissioner Burrows asked if Critical Materials was willing to hold or ask to pull their FAST-41 listing while that Good Neighbor advisory group was being formed.
“The way we understand the FAST-41 is that it allows for all of that to take place and that public comment and engagement is within the process,” said Osterman. “So it doesn’t change the process. It’s not designed to skip any of that. And the answer to that would be that we are following the process that the government has told us to follow, and I think we follow the exposure process of communicating with all of the individuals here that want to have communication and transparency here and we are going to do that.”
Burrows said, “I feel like we should have been reached out to about this at some point as well. We are talking about multi-million dollars just in road infrastructure that we don’t have a budget for right now. Our roads are in disrepair and if you start talking about somewhere between 30 and 5,000 trucks a week coming out the West Fork, we can’t afford that. So I’m a little disappointed that you haven’t reached out to us earlier and now we are going on the fast track. How can we work with you and the community to help resolve some of these impacts here?”
“I think the process should allow time to do that,” said Osterman, “and so there’s no reason why we wouldn’t have the communication and engagement and transparency that you need for us to continue the dialogue and for you to have what you need to go forward. So, my request would be let’s get that going. Let’s open that up so that you get everything you need before you make your decision as to whether you oppose or not oppose or whatever. Let’s get it all out on the table.”
“Unfortunately that process starts tomorrow,” said Commissioner Chilcott. “I know normally that the process can take an ungodly long time to get through. But this is something that we need those assurances, those protections, those guarantees. Whenever it goes too quickly, things get to be missed, overlooked and that’d be something that I am just not willing to gamble on. So how do we do that?”
A lot of questions followed about the mining process including potential impacts on the road system in the county and about the water required by the mine, and impacts on the environment from the proposed mine.
“I’m not trying to skirt your questions,” said Osterman, “The answer is that it is somewhat unknown. At a full-scale mining operation, I would think that we will be helping build roads and bridges and everything else like that and economically supporting that.”
“My last request,” said Osterman, “is not just to you but also to the Friends of the Bitterroot and Bitterroot water organizations to share our desire to be a corporate sponsor to support and acknowledge the very same concerns you have in how our future operations will develop. Most likely we will have shared goals. But until now, for better or worse we have not communicated in a way that either reflects or reveals our goals and how they align with yours. We want this to be an asset to Ravalli County and to the communities and all the people that are here that share all the same concerns that we do sitting here today.”
Dr. Phillip Ramsey, manager of the MPG Ranch and a scientist with years of experience in mining reclamation efforts on the Clark Fork River and founder of the Bitterroot Clean Water Alliance in opposition to the mine was invited to give a rebuttal to the company’s proposal.
“Let’s take a look at the company first,” said Ramsey, “It was formed from a company called Resurgent Capital based in Toronto which formed another company called Holly Street Capital. Resurgent advertises on its web site that it forms shell companies. Holly Street then formed another company called US Critical Metals and they advertise Sheep Creek as their project right now. Then another company comes along calling itself US Critical Materials that was formed by US Critical Metals.”
A shell company is a legal entity with few or no active assets or business operations. While shell companies can be a useful tool for certain legal financial and corporate strategies, their potential for misuse makes them a subject of intense scrutiny by law enforcement and financial regulators, according to sources like the Legal Information Institute (LII) and NorthRow.
“These shell companies line up one after another. They cover each other and they are designed to disappear when any problem shows up,” said Ramsey.
The shell game got even more complex when these two last mentioned companies got together and spawned even another business US Rare Elements Corporation. The partnership was announced in Vancouver, Canada in a news release in 2022.
“Vancouver, British Columbia–(Newsfile Corp. – July 26, 2022) – US Critical Metals Corp. (“USCM“) and US Critical Materials Corp. (“Materials Corp.“) (collectively, the “Parties“) are pleased to announce the Parties have entered into a definitive agreement, dated July 25, 2022 (the “Agreement“) whereby USCM, through its wholly owned subsidiary, US Energy Metals Corp., will invest in rare earth projects, including the Sheep Creek Property in Ravalli County, Montana…USCM has the right to acquire up to a 50% equity interest in US Rare Elements Corp. (“USRE“), a newly formed entity that will be assigned a 100% interest in the Properties by Materials Corp., and the option to earn an additional 25% interest for an aggregate total of 75% equity interest in USRE, subject to the mutual approval of the Parties.”
“The transaction has been structured in order to provide phased capital contributions by USCM and maximize the professional resources available to USRE while providing flexibility in terms of generating future liquidity events.”
There are several positive types of “liquidity events” but one of the more negative ones is bankruptcy or liquidation. This is the option that Darby Lumber company took to remove itself from the list of responsible parties in the current Super Fund reclamation project now occurring at the old mill site in Darby.
Without going into the details of the complex financial arrangements and various “options” involved it is interesting to note the disclaimer that accompanies the press release which reads in part:
This news release contains certain information that may be deemed “forward-looking information” with respect to USCM within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Such forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause USCM’s actual results, performance or achievements, or developments in the industry to differ materially from the anticipated results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Forward-looking information includes statements that are not historical facts and are generally, but not always, identified by the words “expects”, “plans”, “anticipates”, “believes”, “intends”, “estimates”, “projects”, “potential” and similar expressions, or that events or conditions “will”, “would”, “may”, “could” or “should” occur.
“This company has presented a pretty slick pitch but we need to circle back to the facts and what matters,” said Ramsey. “We need to talk about water and the risks. These companies have been prospecting in our headwaters since 2022. There’s no local office. No regular briefing. No full data release. If these companies want our trust they should slow down and take themselves off the fast-track list.”
He points to major discrepancies in what the companies are presenting to potential investors and what they have presented at the meeting. He said the pitch to investors points frequently to Mountain Pass Mine and China’s Bayan Obo mine. These are both big open pit mines on a huge scale.
“They even spoke in their opening remarks about dikes and open ducts,” said Ramsey, “That’s a pitch for an open pit mine. But today we have a new plan with underground mining and back filling.”
It would be the first underground rare earth element mine in US history with untested technology. It’s also just an odd thing to propose to do. Hard rock mining is more expensive and yields less than surface mining and what they are proposing to do is really a lot of work for common stuff sitting around in mine waste dumps all over Montana,” he said. “So far, this proposal sounds more like a plan to mine the US Treasury for grant money than an actual mining plan.”
Regarding the Thorium claims Ramsey said the company submitted 164 rock samples to labs in Ontario and posted results on their web site. “Contrary to the frequently repeated claim that the deposits are low in radioactive Thorium, all of the samples with the highest radioactive concentration were way over 500 ppm which is the trigger for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to regulate Thorium. The reason that the average is low is that there’s a lot of samples in this batch that are just rocks. The ore is high in Thorium. And saying that it is not, over and over again, doesn’t change the fact that it is going to be high in Thorium and they are going to be handling radioactive Thorium in the watershed.”
The samples also show that the ore is high in lead and arsenic “Arsenic and lead are the real unaddressed river killers here,” he said, “Their own data shows that the REE concentration is highly correlated with both. It doesn’t build trust to sweep this back under the rug.” Rain and snowmelt seeping through the mine shafts backfilled with waste rock will contaminate the ground water,” he said, “Safe back filling is a PR slogan.”
“If they want to claim that there is no asbestos there, they need to present the data,” said Ramsey.
“Public releases of this Vancouver based company can also buy up to 75% of these critical materials. We have no assurances that off-taken processes will occur in the U. S,” said Ramsey
“Our headwaters are not the place for an experiment, we need to see data and this Company should take itself off of the fast-track list.”
Executive Director of the Bitterroot Water Partnership Heather said, “This mine will be seated above the Painted Rocks Reservoir at the very headwaters of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River. The company behind the proposal, U. S. Critical Materials, has, not to my knowledge and as they have acknowledged today, had any meaningful engagement with our community.”
“I personally contacted a representative on two separate occasions in October and again in November seeking information and conversation receiving no response. We heard today it was because there was not a plan, but I would have welcomed that information during a conversation,” said Barber.
According to Barber, in 2023 tourists spent $7.5 million on guiding services alone with the tourism industry as a whole bringing in $67 million annually and that the Bitterroot River supports 1,400 farms and ranches generating $33 million annually. She said both these industries rely heavily on the water stored in Painted Rocks Reservoir and income they generate are worth far more than the 40 to 50 jobs that the mine might generate.
She noted that the proposed mine is only 13 miles from the Painted Rocks Reservoir and some of the highest deposits are just 200 yards from the River. “The pollution that could occur here would have an outsized impact on a world class wild trout fishery, a cultural, ecological and economic treasure that drives tourism and recreation and property values,” she said, “Once water is contaminated, the damage is often irreversible and there is no proven example of a rare earth mine done without creating long term harm.
“In the Bitterroot we do not live on rare earth minerals. We live on public lands and healthy rivers. We live for hunting and fishing, floating and bird watching, farming and ranching, recreation, tourism and local business…Sheep Creek, the West Fork the Bitterroot valley are more than just a geographic anomaly or opportunity for a company, they are our home,” she said.
She also responded to Osterman’s offer to support local conservation groups saying, “BWP is not interested in corporate sponsorship from those who are looking to threaten our waters and our ways of life. Our community driven organization is fueled and funded by the people who care deeply about the future of this community.”
Several dozen members of the public spoke in support of removing the Sheep Creek Mine project from the FAST-41 Transparency list and in opposition to the proposed exploration work and the mine.
The commissioners approved sending the letters opposing the FAST-41 listing unanimously.
In their letters to the governor and Montana’s congressional delegation the Commissioners stated “We are writing to express our strong opposition to adding the proposed Sheep Creek Mine in Ravalli County, located in the headwaters of the Bitterroot River to the "FAST-41" program. We absolutely believe that the review process should include input from state and local government and the citizens/public. We urge you to use your influence to support a thorough environmental review and to resist moves that could greenlight this project without full consideration of its risks to Western Montana, Idaho and Washington.”
They expressed concerns about water quality and supply risks, ecological and wildlife impacts, transparency and public participation, long term economic and cultural costs, precedent and federal responsibility, and local impacts and asked them to:
• Publicly urge the Forest Service to require a full EIS rather than allowing shortcuts or categorical exclusions.
• Encourage environmental protections for the Bitterroot and Clark Fork watershed and to reject any weakening of laws that safeguard water, wildlife, and public lands.
• Hold U.S. Critical Materials accountable: insist that they engage transparently with state, local government, communities, conservation groups, and federal agencies.
• Monitor developments closely and communicate with your constituents about the status of this proposal and any actions you take on our behalf.

Concluding, “This issue is not just about mining - it is about protecting our water, wildlife, infrastructure and way of life in the Bitterroot Valley for future generations. We hope you will stand with your constituents and advocate for the strongest possible environmental review and safeguards.”

For a complete copy of the letter to the governor go to:
https://1drv.ms/w/c/e2cc2147bb66782a/IQDRJOSyHxhgRreszvaqVQepAckKxUgRk44BvR8V1Tlaoy8

This reporter emailed Critical Materials on November 23 seeking information about the FAST-41 listing and received a reply from Eric Levy-Meyers on November 25 stating:
“Thank you for reaching out. I have been following your writing on environmental issues in Montana and found them most informative. I appreciate that we share the values of protecting Montana's environment. I would welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with you about such topics.

I am out pocket this week… Can we try for Friday next week? I will be pulling in Scott Osterman into the call since he is a Native Montanan, former Montana Sec. of Commerce and avid outdoorsmen that has been supporting our project.

I will send some read-aheads to you as background next week that may clarify some misunderstandings that I have seen in the reporting of others.

In the meantime, the commissioner’s meeting was held on December 1, the company was placed on the FAST-41 Transparency dashboard on December 2, but as of December 6, no “read-aheads” have been received and no phone call interview has yet been arranged.

Congressional responses to the commissioner’s letter date:

Sen. Tim Sheehy: I strongly support unleashing Montana's resource economy and mining industry. I also believe local voices must be heard loudest when considering public lands policy. Regarding the Sheep Creek Mine, local Montanans have made their opposition clear, therefore I oppose efforts to approve the proposed Sheep Creek Mine and encourage the Permitting Council to remove it from their fast-track
Sen. Steve Daines: We must increase critical mineral mining but in a responsible, locally driven way. Unfortunately the developers of Sheep Creek Mine didn't engage w/the local community. Until they do, I can't support the project & call on the admin to ensure transparency and local engagement in the permitting process.
Rep. Ryan Zinke: Montana knows better than anyone there’s a right and wrong way to mine. Fast tracking a mine with overwhelming public opposition and bypassing the mechanisms that allow for transparency and accountability is the wrong way to do it. Ravalli County officials and residents have been clear in their concerns and opposition to this project. It has fallen on deaf ears and they have received no communication from the company. I urge the council to remove Sheep Creek from the FAST 41 process.