THE BITTERROOT RIVER NEEDS YOUR HELP RIGHT NOW!
The greatest threat to the the health and vitality of the Bitterroot River currently is the prospect of a Rare Earth Element mine in the headwaters of the West Fork of the Bitterroot River in the Sheep Creek and Johnson Creek drainages. The threat first emerged in 2022 and the clouds have simply been growing larger and darker as time passes. If we wait until the storm breaks it may well be too late.
The Bitterroot National Forest is still accepting comments on the new Plan of Operation. Comments may be submitted to: Sheep.Creek.Comments@usda.gov
Bitterroot River Protection Association updates comments on Sheep Creek Mine
Jul 16, 2026
Bitterroot College, 103 S. 9th St. Hamilton, MT 59840
July 13, 2026
Ranger Dan Pliley
West Fork Ranger District
Bitterroot National Forest
6735 West Fork Road
Darby, MT 59829
Daniel.pliley@usda.gov
RE: Comments on proposed Sheep Creek Mine Exploration revised plan
Thanks for reading Bitterroot Free Press! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Dear Ranger Pliley,
The Bitterroot River Protection Association 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. We have worked 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, leading a team of roughly two dozen volunteers annually in water quality monitoring across the Bitterroot River watershed, including the West Fork of the Bitterroot. We have established seven permanent monitoring stations on the mainstem of the river and at least two on each of 19 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.
After reviewing the proposed Plan of Operation for the Sheep Creek Exploration Project (hereinafter referred to as the Plan) it seems evident that the actions proposed by USCM present extraordinary circumstances. Although many exploratory mining projects have relatively insignificant potential negative impacts and are therefore categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement it is evident that the actions proposed by USCM in the present Plan constitute extraordinary circumstances which are obviously significant, or at the very least significant enough to create an uncertainty as to the degree of their significance. A finding of no significant impact seems impossible to imagine in this case. So we are asking the Forest Service to consider at the very least requiring an Environmental Assessment.
All things considered, however, an Environmental Impact Statement and a good hard look at the project should be conducted in this case as the short term and long term impacts may negatively affect the entire watershed downstream from Sheep and Johnson Creek, Painted Rocks Reservoir and the mainstem of the Bitterroot River as well as the entire Bitterroot economy, several threatened and/or endangered species and species of special concern, and more.
We are submitting here several of the most significant potentially negative impacts for your consideration in this regard.
Potential Impacts on Water Quantity and Quality
It appears that in the current Plan the water required for its operation will magically appear from some undisclosed source. This is not acceptable. This alone creates an unacceptable degree of uncertainty about the impacts of the project. The company needs to assure the Forest Service and the public that the source of this essential element for their project operations is dependable and legally available and will not negatively impact any other water users. The source and the amount of water for the whole project needs to be disclosed in detail.
The Plan should identify the water source, the truck capacity, the tank capacity, the helicopter payload, the make-up water rate, or the number of water flights. The Plan needs a water logistics table that identifies source, route, legal supply, truck capacity,tank capacity, helicopter sling capacity, number of flights, initial fill, daily make-up water, expected losses, and water loss contingencies.
The Plan states that “separate from a permit or authorization, no surface water or groundwater quality monitoring is necessary given the nature of the project and minimal surface disturbance.” (pg. 13).
The idea that no groundwater monitoring is necessary “given the nature of the project” is absurd. The plan proposes drilling, blasting, sumps, fuel storage, drilling additives, drill cuttings, and bulk-sample handling, all of which present potential harms to the watershed, especially in the steep terrain. To propose conducting such activities in such a location without even conducting a basic study of the hydrological characteristics of the groundwater flows in the area and its current chemical composition should be considered unacceptable.
The Plan states that, “At Location #1, bulk sampling is anticipated to require up to 300 gallons of water per day, most of which will be recycled. An underground sump will be constructed within the adit for water detention and reuse/recirculation. The sump will measure approximately 18’ x 30’ and will collect excess water from bulk sampling activities via ditches on either side of the main access passage. The sump will provide storage and settling capacity for water. The sump will use a series of chambers and a flocculent log to settle suspended solids in the water. Once solids in the water have been settled out, water will be piped to a water holding tank and then plumbed to the working face of the tunnel.” (Pg. 12)
The Plan does not state how much of the 300 gallons per day will turn out to be “excess” and show up in the sump or how much will be lost during use. But it did estimate that an 18’ x 30’ sump could handle any excess.
Whether their calculations included any intercepted groundwater from the blasting of the walls and ceiling or not also remains undisclosed. It was assumed in the initial rescinded plan that it would be addressed by grouting the area to stop the leakage. But this is a dubious solution and has proven to be ineffective in many mines in Montana.
The Plan states that the water at the bulk sampling site (300 gallons per day) and at the other drill sites (up to 8,500 gallons per day) will be retained in sumps. They claim that potentially contaminated material will settle in the sumps and the water pumped out and re-used and recycled for re-use. (Pgs. 12-13)
It is unreasonable to suppose that the waste rock used to gravel the floor of the tunnel and the side ditches as proposed 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 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. The Plan does not adequately address the fact that the water flowing into the sump at the bottom of the bulk sampling site will have flowed over and through the roadbed composed of fractured waste rock, nor do they propose to examine the waste rock to determine the amount of lead and other metals, arsenic, selenium, asbestos, thorium, or any of the targeted rare earth elements it contains. It does state that they have no intention of doing any monitoring of the water to see what, if any of these metals and elements were dissolved in the process. Running contaminated water through the same gauntlet of toxic material in a “zero-use” recycling process would simply serve to further increase the concentration of dissolved contaminants compounding the pollution problems.
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 will be conducted on site, what water treatment steps will be required to re-use processed water, and any plan for the disposal of solids or other contaminants accumulating in the holding tank.
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 needs to be disclosed. The amount of water to be used in dust abatement in every aspect of the operation, including the access roads, should be disclosed.
The Plan does not mention how the settled material in the sump at the bottom of the bulk sampling site will be dealt with. Simply leaving it in the sump underground invites future contamination. The idea of storing large amounts of fractured waste rock produced in the enlargement of the tunnel by shoving it in a void within the tunnel also creates future contamination issues, especially if water seepage occurs. 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.
The Plan does not disclose how all this potentially contaminated water used in its re-cycling process will ultimately be disposed of at the end of the process. Nor does it adequately address the disposal of waste rock. Simply shoving it into a void and leaving it subject to future groundwater leaching is not a good answer, especially when the composition of the fractured waste rock has not been properly characterized.
All of these deficiencies, from failure to disclose the source of water, to failure to do any surface or groundwater monitoring make it impossible to determine the range or degree of the proposed impacts or even gage the reasonably foreseeable impacts once they occur.
Potential Human Health Hazards
In terms of public health hazards, it is also especially important that the company test 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.
Also omitted is any discussion of uranium, thorium, radium, radon, or radioactivity. The absence of these topics creates a public-safety concern.
The verified presence of thorium needs to be examined more closely. 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 200 ppm, 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 and 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. USCM should disclose existing assays or mineralogical data, conduct screening for uranium, thorium, radium, radon potential, gross alpha/beta activity, and asbestos-form minerals in both waste rock and mineralized ore separately.
Both the presence of actinolite formations and the documented presence of thorium in undisclosed concentrations constitute significant potential negative impacts that are reasonably foreseeable.
Need for an Environmental Risk Assessment
The Plan also lacks any discussion of occupational safety issues and protocols related to handling REEs. It is interesting that the Plan, under the sub section G. Hazardous Substances, in which it was asked to identify the type and volume of all hazardous materials and toxic substances which will be “used or generated” (italics added) in the operations, lists only those being used such as fuels, gasoline, and equipment maintenance and waste procedures, and drilling and blasting related fluids, etc. and their volumes, etc. (Pg.17) It completely fails to mention any of the hazardous materials being generated in the operation, especially in the production of waste rock and mineralized ores, that could include lead and other heavy metals, arsenic, selenium, asbestos, rare earth elements and even radioactive materials, all of which constitute potential human health hazards.
In the 286-page Plan submitted a total of 217 pages contains data about all the hazardous substances that they intend to use, describing in detail the expected volumes, identifying the hazards, describing physical and chemical properties and composition information on ingredients, first aid measures, handling and storage precautions, exposure controls and personal protection, disposal considerations, regulatory information, and potential negative impacts on aquatic organisms, vegetation and human health. But there is not a single page of discussion or data concerning the hazardous substances being generated on the site contained in the fractured waste rock and mineralized ore being produced on the project site.
We know a lot about the hazardous substances produced by mining in terms of lead and other heavy metals from decades of mining in Montana and the kind of contamination and health hazards they precipitate. But so far Montana hasn’t permitted a single Rare Earth Element mine. There is only one productive Rare Earth Element mine active in the U.S. We do know from that activity and activity elsewhere in the world that rare earth elements are hazardous to human health. The United States is not the only country in the world trying to develop safe and sustainable REE mining procedures. [APPENDIX 1 attached: Health and safety issues in REE mining and processing, An internal EURARE guidance report]
Each element is hazardous in varying degrees and impacts human health in various ways. Several of these elements have been identified by the company as target elements found in its Sheep Creek Project sampling to date, including Gallium, Neodymium, Praseodymium, Scandium, Samarium, Lanthanum, and Cerium.
If the Bitterroot National Forest intends to allow U.S. Critical Materials to mine 3,000 tons of ore containing REEs in the headwaters of the Bitterroot River, it is imperative that they conduct an Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA).
The concentration of these elements in the waste rock and in the mineralized ore need to be determined in advance of any mining. The expected volumes to be produced need to be disclosed, and an ERA needs to be conducted. An ERA examines processes, emissions, the spread of contaminants, and exposures to humans and biota. It 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 that 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 (APPENDIX 1- Kauppila et al. 2013).
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?
Elevated concentrations of REEs may also cause toxic reactions and negative effects on plants (APPENDIX 1-Tyler 2004). Is the dust control, which may impact surrounding soils and vegetation 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, adequate? Can this be determined without even characterizing the composition and concentration and determining the level of threat posed by these rare earth elements?
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.
Without conducting an ERA, this Plan presents significant foreseeable human health risks and makes it impossible to determine the degree of significance involved.
Transportation Issues
The Plan states that the mineralized ore will be trucked to the Conner/Darby area, but it does not say whether the private location is a temporary storage yard, a transfer point, a sample preparation site, a crushing/splitting location, or a lab staging area. It does not describe stormwater controls, dust controls, traffic, waste handling, or permits for the private site.
The public and the Forest Service deserve to know that this project is not just exporting hazards elsewhere. We need to know the full extent of the project from beginning to end. The Forest Service should not be approving a project in which critical materials simply magically appear on site and then magically disappear. We need to know where and how essential materials, like water, are being supplied. And we need to know the nature and degree of the hazardous material being produced at the site, stored at the site, and shipped out. Without this information, the degree of significance of the activity remains uncertain.
Waste Rock and Mineralized Ore Separation
Another serious deficiency in the Plan is the lack of any discussion about how the 3,000 tons of mineralized high-grade ore will be separated from the undisclosed amount of waste rock.
According to an article in GlobalNewswire May 13, 2026 (Appendix 2) U.S. Critical Materials [see APPENDIX 2] has a Memorandum of Understanding with Bayan Mining and Minerals Ltd to evaluate rare earth processing technologies on high-grade mineralization from the U.S. Critical Materials Sheep Creek Project in Montana. It states in the article that, “Bayan holds an exclusive global license to a suite of rare earth processing technologies developed by the Colorado School of Mines. The collaboration will evaluate the applicability of these technologies—focused on beneficiation, leaching, and separation—to Sheep Creek’s bastnaesite- and ancylite-hosted rare earths systems.”
“The collaboration will undertake a structured metallurgical test program to assess recovery performance, process efficiency, and flowsheet optimization…. The evaluation will include laboratory validation, iterative optimization, and scalability assessment. The results will inform potential downstream integration and future development decisions.”
It states in the article that “US Critical Materials and Bayan will assess opportunities to establish a U.S.-based pilot or demonstration facility to support technology validation and scale-up.” This suggests that the company is still looking for ways to separate “waste rock” from “mineralized ore,” just as they are still looking for a way to process the mineralized ore at a lab in Idaho- by developing a pilot demonstration facility,
The plan gives no cutoff grade, visual criteria, field-screening method, face mapping protocol, muck-pile sampling plan, geologist sign-off, or assay requirement. After blasting, the muck pile will be mixed. A rough visual separation may work for some vein material, but the plan gives no method that protects against mineralized rock containing high levels of arsenic, lead, radioactive materials or asbestos being left as waste or being shipped as sample.
The plan lists potential MSHA and OSHA approvals, yet the public version gives limited detail on ground-control procedures, gas monitoring, blast plans, ventilation calculations, emergency rescue, or worker access in an old adit. USFS should review or obtain the ground-control plan, ventilation plan, blast plan, gas-monitoring protocol, emergency response plan, rescue access plan, and MSHA-related approvals before work begins.
Without this information reasonably foreseeable significant impacts to human health are not addressed making the determination of the degree of significance impossible.
Stormwater and Accidental Releases
All of these potential avenues of contamination represent serious potential sources of contamination, especially in the event of groundwater leakage from the unexamined surrounding groundwater flows due to blasting and unexpected events such as earthquake (an active fault runs across the Bitterroot Front just down the mountain from the mining claims) or unusually violent storms, which are becoming stronger and more violent due to climate change.
The company claims that “During inclement weather, which is anticipated to peak between December 2026 and February 2027, the project will likely need to temporarily cease operations. To minimize the potential for water quality impacts during temporary cessation, drill holes at Locations #2 – #4 will be plugged, outdoor sumps will be temporarily reclaimed by removing the liner and backfilling the sump to grade, and the gates at Adit 1 and Adit 3 will be closed and locked. (Pg. 13-14). This means that the company recognizes how inclement weather poses a potential threat for water quality impacts that could even require cessation of operations and other protective measures. They do note that this possibility “peaks” between December and February. But it is quite possible that the most serious storms could also occur outside those peak times.
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.
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 road, should be disclosed.
The company claims that “Unless otherwise exempt, the project will be enrolled under the Montana Construction Stormwater General Permit (MTR100000) and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). The SWPPP would identify Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharge and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the site. (pg. 13) The Forest Service should require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be included in the Plan before approving the exploration permit.
Baseline Monitoring Requirement
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, that the elementary basics of any 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.
In this case, it would be negligent for the Forest Service not to require a systematic water quality monitoring program throughout the project area during-operation, post-operation, and post-runoff monitoring upstream and downstream of the work areas. 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.
Potential Impacts on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Bull Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Trout
Given the (recent ruling) by Federal District Court Judge Dana Christensen including that the Forest Service violated NFMA by failing to include forest plan components to maintain or restore connectivity for grizzly bear populations in the Bitterroot Recovery Area and Bull Trout habitat under the endangered
Specis Act prior to approving any Amendment to the plan, surely the Forest Service would want to conduct an analysis of the potential impacts on Bull Trout, Grizzly bears and recognized populations of Westslope Cutthroat Trout before approving this mining exploration project.
According to a recent study [APPENDIX 4- The Fishery of the Upper West Fork Bitterroot River by Clancy, Jakober and Brissette] 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 state’s most valuable fisheries. The Sheep Creek mining claims lie in the very heart of a uniquely large, connected habitat for native fish harboring three native species of concern including adfluvial and resident populations of Bull Trout, an ESA-listed species; a unique, non-hybridized and genetically diverse Westslope Cutthroat Trout population; and populations of Slimy Sculpin.
“Notably, the Upper West Fork is one of the few areas in the Bitterroot that currently supports migratory Bull Trout and is predicted to have the cold water temperatures to continue to support this species in the future, as stream temperatures warm (Isaac et al 2017). For this reason, it is among the highest fisheries conservation priorities in the Bitterroot,” it states in the report.
The report also notes, “Westslope Cutthroat Trout are designated by the State of Montana as a Species of Concern due to severe population declines across their historic range and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks is currently leading a range wide conservation planning effort to develop conservation targets and actions to address these declines. A recent study (Kovach, 2025) characterized these fish as clearly surpassing the highest conservation threshold for prioritization in the Columbia basin hybridization framework.”
In 2015 a suspected fish barrier culvert in Sheep Creek was replaced with a baffled culvert and sampling, using eDNA above this road crossing in 2024, indicates that Bull Trout are found upstream of the road crossing. Results in a reach in Sheep Creek in 2023 showed: Westslope Cutthroat Trout: 19 (56%), Bull Trout: 13 (38%); Eastern Brook Trout x Bull Trout hybrid: 2 (6%) and in the West Fork near Sheep Creek: Westslope Cutthroat Trout: 58 (70%), Bull Trout: 22 (26%); Eastern Brook Trout x Bull Trout hybrid: 3 (4%).
The most recent sampling in Johnson Creek was in 2025. This reach is upstream of a location where an expected barrier culvert was replaced with a bottomless arch culvert to promote fish passage. Prior sampling in 2008 and 2013 found very few Westslope Cutthroat Trout and no Bull Trout. Sampling in 2025 captured: Westslope Cutthroat Trout: 11 (29%), Bull Trout: 27 (71%)
The project threatens not only Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout, 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.
An analysis of the potential negative impacts on all these endangered and threatened species and species of special concern should be required here.
Grizzly Bear, Canada Lynx, and Wolverines
The Plan indicates it will generate up to 600 helicopter flights from Conner to the project site and up to 3,800 “internal hops” within the project area. This activity is bound to affect wildlife, recreation, residents, safety, fire response, stock use, hunting, fishing, and public access in the area.
As early as 2007 the Western Governors Association urged the Department of Interior to encourage development and protection of existing wildlife corridor on federal lands to ensure appropriate environmental site analysis will be completed as necessary to protect crucial wildlife habitat and significant migration corridors located in the field of development. They asked the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to consider placing a moratorium on such categorical exclusions in crucial habitat or migration corridors, and to work collaboratively with the states to ensure that states’ concerns in preserving wildlife migration corridors and crucial wildlife habitats are met.
Montana’s grizzly bear recovery zones are defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act and are designed to protect and restore viable populations while minimizing human-bear conflict. These zones are based on ecological boundaries, historical distribution, and current monitoring data.
As of the latest FWS maps and Montana FWP data, Grizzly bears are managed in several Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and Recovery Areas across the state and the Bitterroot Ecosystem is designated as a connecting Recovery Area. [APPENDIX 5]
It seems that allowing this extreme amount of helicopter activity and eventual mining activity in this Grizzly Recovery Area is in direct conflict with the federal and state Grizzly recovery plans. It will also impact migration routes for elk in the area and disrupt hunting.
The only mitigation offered in the Plan is for pilots to “fly slowly and cautiously”; to fly “during daytime hours to avoid surprise encounters with wildlife”; and “Wildlife encountered during exploration activities, if any, will be allowed to leave the work area unharmed and on its own.” (Pg. 15)
So, they are not harassing and chasing the wildlife out of the project area, they are simply “allowing them to leave”?
General statements about minimizing disturbance do not provide enforceable limits. The plan should include flight caps, flight logs, public reporting, wildlife buffers, seasonal restrictions, goshawk nesting review, limits near residences and recreation areas, and authority for the Forest Service to suspend flights during high-risk conditions.
The flights will affect more than Grizzly bears and elk. 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, mountain goats, and Northern Rockies fisher also inhabit the area. 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. The Forest Service should pay heed to Judge Christiansen’s order and his detailed remarks concerning the need to protect these connecting corridors on the Bitterroot National Forest.
An analysis of the potential impacts of up to 600 helicopter flights from Conner to the project site and up to 3,800 “internal hops” within the project area needs to be analyzed prior to permitting this project as it is a reasonably significant impact.
Potential Impacts on Painted Rocks Reservoir and the Bitterroot River
The values at risk at Painted Rocks Reservoir deserve special consideration early in the planning process. The potential impacts on Painted Rocks Reservoir and the potential contamination to the water and soils behind the dam have not been examined and no monitoring is proposed in that area.
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 the 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 decades-long chronic mining-derived water pollution. The Forest Service should certainly consider the potential risks this mining project presents with respect to catastrophic events such as earthquake and major storm events as mentioned above not only on the Reservoir but on the entire Bitterroot River and community living below the Reservoir.
Potential Impacts on Government Services and the Economy
The Forest Service needs to assess the entire range of potential impacts to the fisheries down stream including economic values, water quality, impacts to the local fishing industry as well as local irrigated agriculture, and the community’s tourism and recreation industry and determine if the risks this mine proposes outweigh the potential benefits which would primarily go to out of state and perhaps even foreign entities.
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. A study of the potentially negative impacts of a proposed mine on the tourism and recreation in the region of the Boundary Canoe Area in Minnesota by two Harvard economists shows that mining development can have very serious negative impacts on the local tourism and recreation economy.
The proposed mine will also have significant impacts on the majority of locally provided services that were not adequately addressed in the Plan including law enforcement, search and rescue, roads and bridges, wildland fire, volunteer fire departments, educational and medical services as well as air quality considerations. But all of this needs to be considered as the Forest Service weighs the cost and benefits of the proposed mining exploration project. BRPA believes 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.
Cultural and Regulatory Considerations
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 Plan also must comply with all Bitterroot National Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards.
BRPA believes the Forest Service should deny this permit request or, at a minimum, conduct an Environmental Assessment. Actually, given the significance and scope of the potential impacts, the Forest Service should take a “good hard look” at effects on water, wildlife and wildlife habitat, human health, ecology, the economy, local services, cultural resources, and the broader community—not only at the mine site, but all the way downstream and conduct a full Environmental Impact before determining whether the risks are acceptable.
Thanks for your consideration of our comments,
Michael Howell
Executive Director
Bitterroot River Protection Association
Bitterroot River West Fork (Sheep Creek Mine) Sampling and Analysis Plan 2026
To follow the developments of the company’s latest moves aimed at expanding their hand sampling efforts to full-blown exploration and extraction click the following links:
https://bitterrootstar.com/2025/11/sheep-creek-mine-on-government-fast-track-lishttps://bitterrootstar.com/2025/12/commissioners-oppose-fast-tracking-of-rare-earth-mi
BRPA has already taken action. We began taking water and soil samples on Sheep Creek, Johnson Creek and the West Fork of the river in the fall of 2024 and continued through 2025.
View a story about it in the Bitterroot Star:
https://bitterrootriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Pristine-waters-of-the-West-Fork.docx
To view our latest Sampling and Analysis Plan click the following link and then click on Project documents:
To view the actual laboratory results go back to Home Page, click on Bitterroot River Health Check and then click on Lab Results.
Establishing a baseline prior to any ground breaking activity is important. It serves as a foundation for continued monitoring in the area if the mining activity should proceed and may be used to identify any negative impacts related to the mining project at an early stage so that these impacts may be mitigated or eliminated as the mining proceeds.
This will benefit the public by protecting the headwater streams, the West Fork and the Mainstem of the Bitterroot River from potential contamination by toxic metals (including potential radioactive contamination) and nutrients associated with REE mining operations. This, in turn will help protect not only the aquatic life and fisheries of the streams and the river in the upper West Fork but all the economic, recreational, and social values associated with the use of those waters.
HISTORY OF THE CLAIMS AND THE NATURE OF THE THREAT
Since 2022, U. S. Critical Materials has annually filed a Notice of Intent to conduct hand sampling of its claims in the area. The proposed arera of operation encompasses 336 lode claims representing approximately 10 square miles of total land package and the company asserts that initial exploration activities have identified more than 50 carbonatite dikes in the Sheep Creek district. The claims are on multiple-use ground administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
The company has filed a Notice of Intent to conduct hand sampling int the area annually since 2022. The results have shown the presence of neodymium and praseodymium as well as cerium, dysprosium, europium, gadolinium, lanthanum, niobium, scandium, strontium, samarium, and gallium. Important ore minerals include ancylite, allanite, low-thorium monazite, and columbite.
According to the Harvard International Review there are two primary methods for REE mining, both of which release toxic chemicals into the environment. Both methods produce mountains of toxic waste, with high risk of environmental and health hazards. For every ton of rare earth produced, the mining process yields 13kg of dust, 9,600-12,000 cubic meters of waste gas, 75 cubic meters of wastewater, and one ton of radioactive residue. This stems from the fact that rare earth element ores have metals that, when mixed with leaching pond chemicals, contaminate air, water, and soil. Most worrying is that rare earth ores are often laced with radioactive thorium and uranium, which result in especially detrimental health effects. Overall, for every ton of rare earth, 2,000 tons of toxic waste are produced. According to the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy Regional ecosystems can be significantly altered by the presence of mines, both physically and chemically. Site preparation, access roads, and ancillary facilities lead to direct—and often absolute— destruction of the proximate environment, while pollution from mine processes and storage of residual tailings can lead to widespread chemical imbalances and toxic contamination.
REE mine tailings contain processing chemicals, salts, and radioactive materials. Tailings are particularly problematic in REE mining, because of the significant waste-to-yield ration. (Filho 2016; Xiang 2016). For every ton of REEs that are produced, there are 2,000 tons of mine tailings, including 1 to 1.4 tons of radioactive waste. Tailings are most commonly stored in isolated impoundment areas called tailing ponds. These ponds require complex management, especially if the tailings contain high concentrations of uranium or thorium. Poor construction or catastrophic failure can lead to long-term and widespread environmental damage and contamination of surface or groundwater (Filho 2016).
Other significant sources of pollution include aerosols and fugitive dust from tailing impoundments, which are created from cutting, drilling, and blasting rock. This pollution can accumulate in surrounding areas (Filho 2016), causing respiratory issues and also contaminating food sources—as plants absorb the airborne pollutants.
The comapny claims that tailings are not an issue because no tailings will be stored on site. But the fact is that they plan on using tailings to gravel the roadways in the mine tunnels and to fill voids in the mine, basically using the mine shaft itse;f as a toxic storage pit. They also admit that groundwater seepage into and through the mine may occur. To see their plan click on the following link and then click on project documents:
To top things off, it is well documented that a significant amount of the mineral actinolite is intimately associated with the minerals USCM would be targeting. Actinolite can be asbestiform in a class known as amphibole asbestos, which is even more toxic than the more usual type of asbestos. In 1960 it was first reported that Sheep creek actinolite “forms masses of radiating fibers surrounding other crystals”. Tremolite, closely related to actinolite which has killed hundreds of people in and around Libby, is an amphibole asbestos. Dust containing amphibole asbestos can travel far and wide and is very difficult to ever clean up. Prevention is the only solution. Drilling exploration is dusty business. The company claims that the Idaho National Laboratory has not identified any asbestos in the ore. But they did not say whther the lab tested for it or not and have not made any test results public.
Phillip Ramsey a scientists with experience in the Super Fund recovery efforts on the Upper Clark Fork due to past mining and founder of the Bitterroot Clean Water Alliance warns that there’s a high probability that mining the Sheep Creek claims will eventually include a large open-pit mine. The company claims that they have no plans to do any open pit mining, but nothing stops them or some future owner of the claims from changing those plans.According to Ramsey, “Every profitable rare-earth element mine is an open-pit mine, and they’ve all had radioactive leaks.”
Great video and interview concerning the implications of a mine at the headwaters of the Bitterroot River with Philip Ramsey who has studied mine reclamation. Click HERE
Donate now
P.O. Box 8
Stevensville, MT 59870
put Sheep Creek Mine in memo