March 30, 2010 in Business, Outdoors, Idaho

Judge blocks Rock Creek Mine

• Print
• Email
• Share

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked a proposal to dig a major new mine beneath a remote Montana wilderness area that boasts grizzly bears, rare trout — and huge reserves of silver and copper.

Mining companies have eyed the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness south of Libby for more than three decades. Development has been stalled by lawsuits from environmentalists, but Revett Minerals had planned to finally start work in the Cabinets this spring.

Monday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said the U.S. Forest Service must reconsider its 2003 approval of the company’s proposal to mine up to 10,000 tons of ore a day.

Molloy also ruled against the mine in 2005, when he struck down a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion of the project.

Revett CEO John Shanahan said the ruling will delay work scheduled to start this spring, most likely for months.

But Shanahan said the Spokane company remains committed to the mine. Rock Creek contains an estimated 229 million ounces of silver and 2 billion tons of copper, and could employ up to 300 people.

“We’re in this for the long haul,” Shanahan said.

Exploratory drilling in the area began in 1979 under the ownership of Asarco. Revett bought the project in 1999.

The company planned to build the mouth of its mine outside the wilderness, then dig three mile-long tunnels to access the ore.

The company has said Rock Creek could produce 6 million ounces of silver and 52 million pounds of copper annually over at least a 20-year mine life.

Several miles north of Rock Creek, Revett operates the Troy silver mine. In 2009, its 180 workers produced 1.2 million ounces of silver and 9.7 million pounds of copper. That mine is expected to remain open at least 6 more years.

Molloy did not immediately provide the grounds for his ruling. Plaintiffs in the case had argued the Forest Service underestimated the potential environmental damage a mine would cause.

“It may be something relatively minor; it may be something relatively major,” Shanahan said. “We remain hopeful it’s something relatively minor.”

Forest Service officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

The case combines two lawsuits, a 2005 complaint against the Forest Service and a 2008 complaint against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

They were filed by the Rock Creek Alliance, Sierra Club, Great Old Broads for Wilderness and several other groups, although not all groups were named in both lawsuits.

Tim Preso, an Earthjustice attorney who represented the plaintiffs, said he was hopeful the Obama administration would be more critical of the mine than the Bush administration, which supported the project.

Rock Creek drains into the Clark Fork River, which is considered critical habitat for threatened bull trout. Preso said that of 35 grizzly bears living in the Cabinet Mountains, at least two live near Rock Creek.

“There’s a lot at stake in terms of wildlife and wilderness,” Preso said. “We hope (the Obama administration) will take a different view of the question of whether it’s appropriate to authorize a massive industrial mining complex in sensitive wildlife habitat adjacent to a federal wilderness area.”

Six comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  misjustice on March 30 at 12:15 p.m.

  One of the largest problems with this mine site is the degredation of the water shed that would occur. Waste water and chemicals from the mining operation would go into the various small streams that run through the area and eventually into all bodies of water that the streams feed.

• 

  EagleEye on March 30 at 1:44 p.m.

  Q: Why is it that health authorities “strongly encourage” anyone who swims in Lake Coeur D’Alene to shower immediately afterward?

  A: Because of the accumulation of mercury and other heavy metal toxins that were released by previous mining operations that were allowed to pollute our most precious resource (fresh water) in an unchecked manner.

  Q: Why can’t I safely eat the fish caught from the vast majority of rivers and streams in the entire Inland Northwest?

  A: Because of the accumulation of mercury and other heavy metal toxins that were released by previous mining operations that were allowed to pollute our most precious resource (fresh water) in an unchecked manner.

  Half of the mine operators should be behind bars for the PERMANENT environmental destruction that they have wrought in their quest for short-term profits at the tremendous expense of everyone else. Jobs are very important but most definitely aren’t worth multi-generational suffering. Given the irresponsible history, I don’t care how many jobs are involved, polluting our environment into perpetuity is NOT acceptable.

  Unless the Principals and Directors of Rock Creek can PERSONALLY guarantee that there will be no environmental damage, backed up by seizure of their personal assets, huge fines and lengthy jail terms if proven, projects like this should not be allowed to go forward. That may sound extreme but look at the amount of damaged caused by turning a blind eye.

  Projects that equate to “profits at any cost” simply can’t be allowed to continue. We need to learn our bitter lessons from the past and finally put a stop to the madness.

• 

  Elrey on March 30 at 3:16 p.m.

  It’s amusing that I landed on this story after viewing this one:

  http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/mar/30/talking-it-over-holden-mines-legacy-of-gold/

  which mentions a $200M clean-up cost that the Howe Sound Mining Company is not around to sponsor, any more. Rio Tinto? maybe …

  Mining companies come and go, and follow an inevitable arc where the ore body plays out or the market craters; they can be counted on the not be counted on.

• 

  force_vector on March 30 at 4:07 p.m.

  So says those clickity clakcking away on their computers made possible from mined materials, and streaming their ignorange via yet more mined materials. Classic. This is 2010, not 1950. Mines have to obtain discharge permits pursuant to enforcement by multiple state and federal agencies should they fail to properly monitor and/or violate the allowed concentration of discharge. I’m not saying that I think this mine should be allowed, as I don’t have enough knowledge about the project to have an informed opinion. I am saying though that we need mining, and advances in technology both from the mining perspective as well as an environmental perspective make a more eco-friendly mine operation not only possible, but law.

• 

  force_vector on March 30 at 7:10 p.m.

  Additionally, I would like to point out that eagleeye makes a good point: enforcement is critical. While we need mining and the metals produced from it, too often greed and/or incompetence has led to damage to our watersheds in the past. While the damage is not permenant, as nothing ever is, it is unacceptable and must be avoided in the future.

• 

  wyoboy on March 31 at 5:50 p.m.

  Not a tuff problem to solve on the clean up. Require large reclamation bonds. This is what the State of New Mexico recently did for all new mines. It sorts the grain from the chaff so to speak.

  Montana mining regulations are too lax in this area.

  I worked oil and gas for years and the bonding requirments go along way in solving these get it an leave problems.