Rock Creek Mine fight 'not a done deal'

‘This is a high-risk mine perched right on the river … we have everything to lose and nothing to gain’

—Mary Costello,

Rock Creek Alliance

By DAVID GUNTER

Feature correspondent

SANDPOINT — The mining company names have changed several times over the past 30 years — Asarco, Sterling, Revett, Hecla.

And though the corporate letterhead has changed with them, the mine permit request they continue to push forward has remained remarkably intact.

“It’s still the same bad idea,” said Mary Costello, executive director for the Rock Creek Alliance. “It’s the same bad mine proposal that was put in front of us years ago.”

The proposal in question is the Rock Creek Mine, first rolled out officially in the 1980s and faced with fierce opposition downstream ever since.

The persistence of the serial list of mining companies in favor of the project has been matched only by the doggedness of the opposition — a vocal consortium of local residents, sportsmen, Realtors and business owners gathered under the Rock Creek Alliance umbrella since 1996.

The constant reassurance of environmental safety by one firm after another seeking to start work at the mine has done little to assuage the fears of opponents. Instead, it has acted to underscore the primary concern that — should the best-case scenarios and vague guarantees not pan out — Lake Pend Oreille will become the accidental dumping pool for acid-drenched toxic mine waste. Worse yet, according to Costello, the poisoning of Pend Oreille’s waters and all waterways downstream could go on for generations; long after the mine has been played out and the companies involved have moved on.

It is, she insisted, the very picture of letting the genie out of the bottle.

“Once you pop the cork on the mine, the pollution will be coming into our watershed in perpetuity,” she said. “We’re talking hundreds and hundreds of years.

“What happens when they leave?” the director asked. “We’re stuck with the mess the company leaves behind.”

In its first iteration, the proposal touted the use of what then was considered groundbreaking technology designed to entomb toxic chemicals within what would eventually become a massive tailings impoundment, basically “capping” the mine waste as a way to keep it stable.

Costello sought to debunk that depiction by first noting that “the impoundment would contain 100 million tons at the completion of mining, covering approximately 300 acres and rising to a height of 300 feet.”

Beyond that, she cautioned that the proposed technology has been called into question by the industry itself, not to mention the fact that the impoundment would be physically situated in such a way that, should any sort of accident occur, downstream communities would be negatively impacted.

“We’re looking at a tailings impoundment that would be sitting, literally, right next to the Clark Fork River,” said Costello. “And they’re still talking about using a method of construction for it that even the mining industry is thinking about banning, because it’s proving to be unsafe.”

The alliance’s main concerns align with its mission statement: “Working to Protect the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Watershed and the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.” Rock Creek Mine, Costello stated, would take pristine water from a wilderness area flush it through the mine and then “pump it into the watershed.” Once the big hole is dug and the natural flow of Cabinet Mountain Wilderness waterways is disrupted, she added, the area’s natural geology would create an “acid mine” that gathers water in the bowels of the abandoned mine and leaches the resulting pollutants into ground and surface water to be released downstream after the mine has closed.

“You couldn’t imagine a worse-case scenario,” Costello said. “Here we have a mine that would be piping pollution into the Clark Fork River, where it would flow right into Lake Pend Oreille. There’s so much at stake and that’s why we have to keep this from happening.”

Early on, spokespeople from both Asarco and Sterling mounted road shows to convince surrounding communities that the mine was both safe and economically beneficial — a message that resonated in smaller Montana towns but fell flat along the more populated shores of Lake Pend Oreille. When Sandpoint informational meetings with the mining companies erupted in vocal opposition from almost every corner of the community, the mine reps rushed back across the state line to raise the specter of lost jobs in Montana.

“That’s the argument they always use — the lure of all these jobs,” Costello said. “But this is not taking away anyone’s job. There’s no mine there and there are no jobs.”

By the time Hecla acquired rights to the Rock Creek Mine project in 2015, the Montana Supreme Court already had knocked out a cornerstone of the permitting process when it decided the mine’s discharge of 3 million gallons a day into the Clark Fork River would violate the Montana Water Quality Act.

Hecla representatives did not respond to requests to be included in this article, but the company leads its web page information on the mine with message of potential employment.

“The underground room-and-pillar operation will produce an estimated 6 million ounces of silver and 50 million pounds of copper annually,” an overview tab reads. “Over the life of the mine (currently estimated at 33-38 years), Rock Creek will provide more than 300 full-time jobs, a $667 million payroll, $175 million in tax revenue, and $400 million toward the purchase of goods and services.”

A Hecla link to more Rock Creek Mine information contains an environmental overview section that states: “We understand the issues surrounding Rock Creek, and will work to develop the property with minimal impact on the environment while providing a positive impact on the surrounding communities of Sanders and Lincoln Counties.”

Good news, perhaps, for western Montana, but not so much for Bonner County and the connecting watershed, according to Rock Creek Alliance founding board member Jean Gerth.

“This is a government giveaway of our land, our water and our resources,” she said, adding that, despite long-term opposition by Sandpoint-area residents, the cause has not been adopted from Idaho officials at the county and state levels. “They clearly are on the track of letting corporate interest run this, at the risk of our natural resources.”

Apart from news of winning lawsuits against the mine proposal — something the Rock Creek Alliance has done successfully — the group has been challenged as far as keeping the issue in the news and top-of-mind for the downstream communities involved.

Just as with the ever-changing face of the mining companies seeking to start production at Rock Creek, the influx of new residents has meant that the alliance has constantly had to hit the re-set button on its messaging. Even some who have supported the group’s fight have moved on to other issues, assuming the mine idea had been shot down.

“I run into people all the time who say, ‘Rock Creek Mine? I thought that was over,’” said Gerth.

Not even close, said Costello. If anything, the acquisition of the project by Hecla raises the ante. Financially and politically, the company has clout, she pointed out.

“They’re not going to give up,” the executive director said. “It’s all about investors and getting their foot in the door at Rock Creek. That’s their focus. They’ll say anything to get that mine permitted and start turning ground to get at that ore body.”

One big hurdle for the Rock Creek Alliance is that, in spite of the fact that a large percentage of Sandpoint residents and business owners remains firm in their resolve against the project, it is, after all, a Montana-based proposal and would live or die based on decisions made on that side of the border. If the mine gets permitted, the director said, the alliance is prepared to go back to court for “a whole, new round of legal battles.”

A larger threat to the group’s fight might have moved into the picture with the inauguration ceremony that took place on Friday. One of the new administration’s first moves was to vow to eliminate “harmful and unnecessary policies” associated with the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the United States Rule. This sudden lurch in policy bodes ill for those battling approval of the Rock Creek Mine.

“What happens if they gut those laws?” Costello asked in reference to legislation such as the Clean Water Act of 1972. “Then we’re in a tough place at Rock Creek.”

At this stage, the Rock Creek Alliance is banking on the continued support of Sandpoint as the permitting process grinds forward. The community’s involvement, the director stressed, will be key to where the final decision lands.

“We’re the largest populated area that would be impacted by this mine,” she said. “This is a high-risk mine perched right on the river, with an elevated potential for ‘acid mine’ drainage into our watershed. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain.”

In a rallying cry leading up to the close of the decision-making phase, Costello explained that public input could tip the balance and urged concerned citizens to contact the U.S. Forest Service, which has the ability to stop the project or wave it through.

“It’s important that the Forest Service hears from the public — they hear from the mining companies all the time,” Costello said.

“The Rock Creek Mine is not a done deal,” added Gerth. “And we shouldn’t stop fighting against it.”

The USFS contact person in charge of the Rock Creek Mine permitting process is regional forester Leanne Marten, who can be contacted at 406-329-3315 or by e-mail at: lmarten@fs.fed.us

The Rock Creek Alliance can be contacted at 208-610-4896. For information on the organization, visit online at: www.rockcreekalliance.org

The group has a community event planned for Feb. 8, from 5-8 p.m., at the Idaho Pour Authority on Cedar Street in downtown Sandpoint. Rock Creek Alliance representatives will be on hand to provide an update on the proposed mine.

Hecla Mining Co. also has company information on the project online at: www.hecla-mining.com/rock-creek/